What’s happening with FontBakery? Is Fontspector the future?

2»

Comments

  • Simon Cozens
    Simon Cozens Posts: 810
    edited September 16
    John Savard said:
    If a user has to be concerned about dependencies when installing a program on Windows, the battle is already lost. 

    You know that Fontbakery has a dependency on Python, and also on a bunch of Python modules, don't you? On the other hand...

    In a Windows port of a version of FontBakery with FontSpector inside, I had assumed that all the dependencies are handled before the thing is packaged.

    ...Fontspector on Windows is provided as a single binary download with no dependencies at all. It is easier to install.

    I don't know why "Typedesigner" ended up trying to compile it from source, given that step one of the install instructions was "download the precompiled binary".

    While I freely admit there could and should be better documentation, I'm discouraged right now. I feel like I am getting a lot of flak based on the experience of one user who pronounces themselves as non-technical, eschews the solution provided for non-technical users, fails to read the instructions, and then blames me. I'm not entirely sure the flak is justified.

  • Typedesigner
    Typedesigner Posts: 72
    John Hudson said:
    Again: there is a web interface. It is incredibly easy to use, and provides exactly the sort of functionality that a non-technical user would want. I can’t think of any compelling reason why I would want to install FontSpector locally.
    For example, if you are working on custom fonts and have signed a confidentiality agreement with your clients, would you prefer to check these fonts in an online tool like FontSpektor or directly offline on your Mac? For safety reasons, the second option is definitely preferable.
  • Simon Cozens
    Simon Cozens Posts: 810
    edited September 16
    People have explained to you multiple times that no data leaves your computer and all processing is done locally. I really don't understand what's going on.

    Again, I'm not forcing you to use it. If you don't like it, don't use it. Fontbakery is still there. Thankfully we didn't replace it with the Rust version.
  • Typedesigner
    Typedesigner Posts: 72
    Simon Cozens said:
    People have explained to you multiple times that no data leaves your computer and all processing is done locally. I really don't understand what's going on.

    Again, I'm not forcing you to use it. If you don't like it, don't use it. Fontbakery is still there. Thankfully we didn't replace it with the Rust version.
    Once again: Currently, there is an ERROR when installing FontBakery under Python 3.13.7, which has caused frustration for many users. It would be great if you could fix this technical issue.
  • Jens Kutilek
    Jens Kutilek Posts: 383
    Typedesigner said:
    Once again: Currently, there is an ERROR when installing FontBakery under Python 3.13.7, which has caused frustration for many users. It would be great if you could fix this technical issue.
    Have you tried filing an issue in the appropriate repository?

    You come across like you're trolling.
  • Typedesigner
    Typedesigner Posts: 72
    Jens Kutilek said:
    Typedesigner said:
    Once again: Currently, there is an ERROR when installing FontBakery under Python 3.13.7, which has caused frustration for many users. It would be great if you could fix this technical issue.
    Have you tried filing an issue in the appropriate repository?

    You come across like you're trolling.
    I’ve already reported the issue on GitHub regarding the inability to install FontBakery locally, which has not been resolved yet. This was working fine about two months ago. I would also kindly request that we keep the discussion respectful and constructive, avoiding any remarks like "trolling."

  • mitradranirban
    mitradranirban Posts: 100
    Typedesigner said:
    For example, if you are working on custom fonts and have signed a confidentiality agreement with your clients, would you prefer to check these fonts in an online tool like FontSpektor or directly offline on your Mac? For safety reasons, the second option is definitely preferable.
    Why you just open https://fonttools.github.io/fontspector/# then go offline and test? It will work all the same, without the anxiety of going online.
    Or download the pre-compiled for windows  fontspector binary and run locally offline? 
  • Simon Cozens
    Simon Cozens Posts: 810
    edited September 16
    Typedesigner said:
    Once again: Currently, there is an ERROR when installing FontBakery under Python 3.13.7, which has caused frustration for many users. It would be great if you could fix this technical issue.
    I uploaded a new version of shaperglot last Friday with Windows / Py3.13 wheels.
  • Typedesigner
    Typedesigner Posts: 72
    mitradranirban said:
    Typedesigner said:
    For example, if you are working on custom fonts and have signed a confidentiality agreement with your clients, would you prefer to check these fonts in an online tool like FontSpektor or directly offline on your Mac? For safety reasons, the second option is definitely preferable.
    Why you just open https://fonttools.github.io/fontspector/# then go offline and test? It will work all the same, without the anxiety of going online.
    Or download the pre-compiled for windows  fontspector binary and run locally offline? 
    That's a very good idea, and it works! Thank you.
  • Typedesigner
    Typedesigner Posts: 72
    edited September 16
    Simon Cozens said:
    Typedesigner said:
    Once again: Currently, there is an ERROR when installing FontBakery under Python 3.13.7, which has caused frustration for many users. It would be great if you could fix this technical issue.
    I uploaded a new version of shaperglot last Friday with Windows / Py3.13 wheels.
    Thank you for letting me know! I have just successfully installed FontBakery on Python 3.13.7. Everything is working perfectly.
  • Simon Cozens
    Simon Cozens Posts: 810
    I have now added a much more detailed installation guide  and most of a usage guide (which can still be improved) to Fontspector.
  • John Savard
    John Savard Posts: 1,193
    Simon Cozens said:
    John Savard said:
    If a user has to be concerned about dependencies when installing a program on Windows, the battle is already lost. 

    You know that Fontbakery has a dependency on Python, and also on a bunch of Python modules, don't you?


    Yes. Of course it has dependencies; my concern was whether the user had to worry about them.

    While I freely admit there could and should be better documentation, I'm discouraged right now. I feel like I am getting a lot of flak based on the experience of one user who pronounces themselves as non-technical, eschews the solution provided for non-technical users, fails to read the instructions, and then blames me. I'm not entirely sure the flak is justified.

    I took the contents of posts here at face value, without attempting to fact-check them, particularly as other replies seemed to agree that FontSpector was more difficult to install locally than FontBakery. I could have been confounding the experiences of people installing it from source on Linux with what Windows users need to do, though - since many of the comments didn't indicate which platform was being referenced.
    I can't speak for everyone who participated in this thread, of course. But I will say for myself that I was not intending to cast blame on the developers of FontSpector.
    I think that migrating FontBakery to Rust, and obtaining in return increased speed and security, is a wonderful service to the type design community.
    This is despite the fact that I did take at face value claims that there were some unfortunate teething troubles associated with the transition. I had hoped that these issues could somehow be addressed, while acknowledging that such issues may be unavoidable. Having such issues wouldn't mean the developers were careless or incompetent, things like that can be a natural result of a new development effort. The only real legitimate complaint that any of this discussion really had was that support for the older FontBakery was perhaps ended too soon, before FontSpector was fully ready - and, as I noted, even if that was true, it was entirely understandable, as open-source projects often have limited resources.
    This isn't a reason to be discouraged; even if there are no problems with a program, of course the odd user might have issues for an unrelated reason, mistaking the cause for an issue with the program; that doesn't mean the program won't be helping thousands of other people.

  • John Hudson
    John Hudson Posts: 3,504
    In my experience, the term ‘binaries’ isn’t helpful when explaining software to non-technical users. It’s one of those terms that the people who make software assume is common parlance, but it really isn’t. Users think in terms of apps and programs, so directions to download ‘binaries’ isn’t meaningful to a lot of people.

    Saying something like ‘download and install the stand-alone FontSpector tool’ might be clearer.

    Regarding the web version, I think a lot of people assume that anything that happens in a browser must be uploading something somewhere, because they think of a browser only as a kind of portal to the Internet, and not as a software platform that serves code that runs locally.
  • John Savard
    John Savard Posts: 1,193
    edited September 16
    Simon Cozens said:

    ...Fontspector on Windows is provided as a single binary download with no dependencies at all. It is easier to install.

    I don't know why "Typedesigner" ended up trying to compile it from source, given that step one of the install instructions was "download the precompiled binary".


    So you had done all the right things.
    I will be more explicit about my assumptions.
    If someone knows, or even thinks he knows, how to install a package on Linux by compiling it from source (which is a legitimate technique; there's even one Linux distro that basically expects you to install software in that way only, as a consequence of its support for a wide variety of hardware platforms) then, if he runs into a snag, he would ask about it on a Linux tech forum.

    (EDIT: It's Gentoo Linux, apparently, that I was thinking of.)

    He certainly wouldn't be coming here to complain.
    So I carelessly assumed that someone finding it difficult to install FontSpector was trying to install it on Windows, and was doing so by means of the easiest and simplest option available, according to the provided instructions. That assumption turned out to be mistaken.
    Simon Cozens said:
    I have now added a much more detailed installation guide  and most of a usage guide (which can still be improved) to Fontspector.

    Thank you.
  • Simon Cozens
    Simon Cozens Posts: 810
    John Hudson said:
    In my experience, the term ‘binaries’ isn’t helpful when explaining software to non-technical users. It’s one of those terms that the people who make software assume is common parlance, but it really isn’t. 


    This is really good advice; thank you, John. I'll update the instructions to avoid "binary". "Tool" is a great compromise because I suspect that "app" will make people think there's a GUI, and "tool" may give the sense that this is... well, not one of those.
  • John Savard
    John Savard Posts: 1,193
    John Hudson said:
    Regarding the web version, I think a lot of people assume that anything that happens in a browser must be uploading something somewhere, because they think of a browser only as a kind of portal to the Internet, and not as a software platform that serves code that runs locally.

    Yes; but the issue is actually more complicated than that. Many moderately technical users are certainly aware that they can go to a web site, and run JavaScript software on a page which does work locally.
    However, they have no way of actually verifying that the work is being done locally, instead of being done on a server.
    Of course, it's perfectly possible for executables to secretly send information somewhere too, if a computer is connected to the Internet; this, however, is considered a characteristic of malicious software (except for stuff like checking for software updates, reporting technical issues, and so on).
    So it's not just a question of ignorance of the possibility that a web page could do stuff locally, it's also a trust issue.

    As for the term "binary": while in Linux, users would be familiar with putting stuff in the "bin" directory, yes, that's not a term in general use on Windows. One speaks of "executables" or "installation packages" there. And when the term "binary" is used in that domain, it means an individual .exe file (or, back in the MS-DOS days, also a .com file) after installation, not the install package (which is usually an .msi file).
    Also, while I knew that quartz was silicon dioxide, of course I did not know the formulas for olivine or any feldspar - in fact, I looked them up, to make sure that there wasn't an additional joke, but quartz is not a feldspar, nor is olivine another name for it. XKCD is often excellent.

Categories