Opinions on Optical Kerning...

dave bailey
5.Jun.2006 8.45am

First off, I did see this post: http://typophile.com/node/10317

Recently I’ve made the switch to InDesign (CS2) and have been using the optical kerning for headlines, titles and larger type. There are tweaks to be made after applying it, depending on the situation but it seems like a much better starting point than Metrics for large type. Has the technology improved since the above posts in the new versions of InD? Is this bad practice? How do others use this feature? or do you use it at all? I feel like this optical spacing would be inappropriate for body copy? Are some typefaces setup with ’optical’ AND ’metrics’ or is this purely an InD technology? Discuss!

crossgrove
5.Jun.2006 9.53am

One thing to note is that ID will do its own, different (looser) kerning on smaller text. So, you would not get the *same* spacing/kerning at small sizes. Try out some text and see which setting you like better. For that matter try both Optical and Metrics kerning on several different typefaces.... You will find that ID loosens text at small sizes compared to the built-in kerning (Metrics), and tightens at large sizes.

Paul Cutler
5.Jun.2006 9.54am

I like the Optical for certain faces whose Metrics don’t seem well designed. But if I’m using a face that has good Metrics, I use them…

peace

dezcom
5.Jun.2006 10.20am

Mrs. Eaves looks best using it.

On a well done font, I tend to use built in metrics but track it tighter for large sizes. Fonts are typically tuned for a certain size range. If I have a small amount of type for a heading at a large size (and if the standard metrics don’t quite work) I track and kern it myself. Sometimes I try the Adobe Optical and tweak it afterward. Mr. Cosgrove is right, just putz with it and see what works best.

ChrisL

seventy7
5.Jun.2006 10.54am

Art Rafaeli’s “Book typography” has an interesting discussion comparing and discussing the Optical, Metrics and Auto kerning functions of both InDesign and Quark.

Book Typogaphy

Here’s a quote from Fig. 12 on page 29 in which a sample of text utilizing optical kerning is shown. The same text is sampled in the book’s Figure 11 with metrics kerning applied:

The optical kerning option tends to increase the spacing of characters as it moves from rightways or leftways and so the user’s guide recommends that after the ’kerning’ is applied some negative tracking should be applied generally to compensate for this. The literature does not say how much tracking might be needed but -7 seems sufficient for this example. Note that the r and the comma in ’matter,’ (in the tenth line) are now agreeably spaced.

Stephen Coles
5.Jun.2006 11.33am

Also: InD Optical Spacing for FontLab?

And there’s another thread in which Raph dove into this issue where I posted these comparison images. All my posts pre-May 5, 2005 were lost in the Typophile redesign. Not that I said anything magnificent, but it does make searching and following the conversation a bother.

Paul Cutler
5.Jun.2006 4.40pm

Optical kerning generally gets tighter in my experience. I usually loosen it just a touch…

peace

dezcom
5.Jun.2006 6.52pm

But it depends on the size of text. I feel the need to tighten large heads especially sans.

ChrisL

dave bailey
5.Jun.2006 8.16pm

Thanks for your thoughts. I’m with Chris on this, larger heads need a bit of tightening.

Stewf: Thanks for the image link, I had a quick browse through the Mrs. Eaves thread so I was aware of the problems there.

Russ Coombs
18.Aug.2006 2.39pm