You came to the right place, Rob. Some reading:

http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20604.html
http://macuser.pcpro.co.uk/stephencoles/?reviews/reviews_story.php?id=48333
http://typographi.ca/000705.php

Previous Typophile discussions:

http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/30/12197.html
http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/30/34581.html
http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/30/18254.html

The truncated conclusion: InDesign CS is an improvement over
Quark in nearly every way, typographically and otherwise.

Rob, InDesign is a slam dunk over, what was that called again?

Thanks for that Stephen.

I suspected there might have been previous discussions on InDesign/Quark, but I certainly didn't expect the strength of feelings expressed in favour of InDesign. That's really surprised me.

But then again, my mobile phone is the size of a house brick.

>the strength of feelings

Some of mine:

LOYALTY to Quark (it did, after all, save and revitalise my career as an art director, and I must have spent 10,000 hrs using it)
SUSPICION of Adobe's monopoly
DISAPPOINTMENT at implementation of OpenType features (non-existent in Quark, botched in InD)
ANGER at having to reprogram myself to use different software and keyboard commands to do almost exactly the same task in InD as in Quark.
FRUSTRATION at not being able to find the Pantone color swatches in InD 2.0 -- because there weren't any!
WARYNESS (?) of the color values associated with surprinting dropshadows in InD.
JOY at the ease of making PDFs in InD.
ANNOYANCE that I have to keep a foot in both camps -- as a freelancer with different clients who require files in different formats
EMBARRASSMENT that my students (I teach part time) will graduate proficient in InD, but with no Quark skills (the faculty chose Adobe), when that's a requirement of most entry-level jobs
RESIGNATION to the changing of the guard
AMAZEMENT at having a page design criticized for being too "Quark-y" (yeah, the grid was too evident and no transparency/dropshadow effects)
Of course, SATISFACTION with a lot of what InD does...

overall, mixed emotions.

Come on in, the water's fine.

Maybe it's because I'm a lefty or maybe because I'm a middle-child I've always sided with the underdog - Quark, Apple, Pepsi. Quark though, rested on its laurels way too long. When they finally got to OS X it was way too late and without any compelling reasons to go back. I've heard horror stories about their (off-shore?) tech support whose blanket answer is to reinstall.

As far as OT support, maybe someone could argue it was botched. But, I see it more as pioneering. The promise of OT is yet to be realized, I think. Especially with the limited support out there. (Can you imagine Flash ever getting OT support? I can't.)

Heh. I must say, I'm happily surprised to see that somebody considers Quark to be the underdog at this point.

Of course, Quark was unchallenged in their market segment for quite a few years, and their development really stagnated. But even
if one thought that InDesign's market share could end up as strong as that for Photoshop, do people think that's bad? Has having the largest market share for high end image editing hurt the development of Photoshop?

How do people feel about using apps from a bunch of different vendors? Is there anybody who used to use the Photoshop/Freehand/QuarkXPress combo who has moved to Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign who can comment on how much of a plus there is from app integration, versus folks concerns about having one vendor providing multiple apps?

Cheers,

T

We've used InDesign from square one to produce all of these lovely things at Veer. I'm so glad we left our Quark and PageMaker experiences back at Adobe and EyeWire. (Yes, the Adobe Studios catalog and all of the Adobe Image Library collateral material was at one time designed in Quark. EyeWire was a Pagemaker shop.)

Joe, what do you mean by the OT support being botched? In Quark? I'm confused.

Rob:
I use InDesign 2 (on Windows) at work (a major Canadian Public Library) and I enjoy it and it works well, smoothly, and is wonderful at setting text. I just like it. If you are already using Illustrator and Photoshop, InDesign makes an excellent fit.

There are some interface inconsistencies with Illustrator and Photoshop, and that can bug you, but in all they are very nice together.

I have purchased Creative Suite Premium for my own use (on Macintosh) and the integration is better through-out though there is still more to be done. It is pretty well wholesome and delicious from my POV.

Thomas:
I can't speak to crossing the Quark with Adobe apps. I have only ever used Adobe apps. I even liked Pagemaker and thanks for bringing back the Control Panel in CS.

It looks like Macromedia Studio MX is in my very near future because of my various capacities at work, so I may be able to comment on this soon.

Nick:
What I don't understand is why you feel embarrased that your students haven't learned Quark. InD is clearly gaining traction and improving steadily, and seems the way of the future. Your students are well prepared. I don't understand why employers and potential employees both worry so much about whether you have one or the other. Can't the other be learned and conceptually we're talking about the same stuff right (text and pictures combined on a page), so you sit down, RTFM, screw around, commit to using the new one for a critical project and then you've got a pretty good idea of what goes on. I know this sounds like I'm an arrogant prick (I can be) but what I'm getting at is: are these programs that conceptually different? From what I have seen in the screenshots and movies and stuff it looks a lot the same.*

In general:
I have never had the opportunity to use Quark. I'm sure it can be learned. I'm sure it's a very capable program or the large number of companies that do use it would no longer be invested in it.

As a potential customer (and up until my recent CS purchase I was one), nothing that Quark did or said could convince me that their world was better. Truthfully I must say that their insistence on not bringing their stuff to OS X drove me mad and predjudiced me against them forever.

Jon

*I remember now: their Flash movie seems to not work when you get to the Landmarks section. I'm downloading a demo of Quark right now just to prove to myself what a reasonable guy I am...

Jon:

I am in a similar situation with always having used Adobe. I have a familiarity with Quark, but obviously much prefer ID. I didn't mean to imply I disliked ID; it's absolutely fabulous. Especially with the move to CS... mmm Pantone.

Tom:

I do have a question about ID if you know the answer, even if it is slightly off-topic for this thread. Why when ID documents are PDF'd do white/black borders where invisible objects used to be (textboxes, contentboxes) linger when viewed but not printed?

Doesn't hurt anything, just curious.

Grant, I was referring to Nick's disappointment that OT implementation in InDesign is botched (Nick's words, not mine). I only say InDesign is pioneering, because it's the only mainstream app that can use OT fonts at the moment.

Nick, there are color swatches in InD. They just happen to be in the color palette. (Imagine that.) Rather than in an obscure dialogue box. I agree with Jon, that is one aspect of the Adobe suite that's really nice - the apps all play nicely together. For the most part all the key commands are the same.

Thomas, of course Quark is the underdog. They're not Microsoft or Adobe. =) It was easy to predict the day Adobe announced InDesign (1998?). I knew then PageMaker and Quark were doomed if Adobe got InD right. (Frankly I was kind of puzzled to see PageMaker continue on for so long after InD came out.)

Furthermore, you're right about the Photoshop example. I've been impressed that Adobe has continued to innovate with Photoshop. (Afterall, they still want people to have a good reason to upgrade every year or two, right? No different from any other software maker.)

Rob Walker, one final point. Don't expect to install InDesign and "get it" immediately. If you know Illustrator, sitting in the InD saddle will feel very familiar. But when you switch, give yourself some adequate time to try stuff, read the manual, etc. For me it took half a day to get over the awkwardness of a new app and about a full week before I felt like I really understood the more complex stuff: how to use masks, masterpages, style sheets, etc.

I guess the bottom line is, I don't believe in hanging on to old tech for nostalgia's sake. For utility's sake, yes. Just don't expect to see me with a Newton. =)

Thomas asked: ... who has moved to Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign who can comment on how much of a plus there is from app integration, versus folks concerns about having one vendor providing multiple apps?

I can comment on this. Although I'm far from expert, I have to say that is one really major reason I'm trying to work with only InDesign and not going back to Quark. The fact that everything seems to be one application. The ability to go back and forth without having to mentally switch different quick keys. The downside for me is speed. I'm using Panther and Indy CS (all CS now actually). But Quark is still faster, and not just marginally, I would call indy slug-like even. But, I use Indy because the patience pays off in the end. --- BTW Indy > GoLive < Illustrator is pretty cool too.

Nick said: EMBARRASSMENT that my students (I teach part time) will graduate proficient in InD, but with no Quark skills (the faculty chose Adobe), when that's a requirement of most entry-level jobs

This is a reality. I can relate to this. It seems most entry level jobs want friggin' ambidextrous multi-lingual multi-platform multi-media geniuses ... an unfair amount of pressure is put upon the teachers whose hands are tied.

I can also say that I have put zillions of hours into Quark and can only say that I'm happy that Adobe allows the quick-keys (and other such) to be the same app to app. I can even set my palettes up almost identically from app to app. Lurvely!

Up until recently I've managed to leave Quark alone. I do have a two clients now, one a publisher the other in the training field, who both use Quark 4.11 -- so I happily can help them. Otherwise I might not have been able to accept the work. I consider Quark a tool that I can use when I need to, but only often enough that it doesn't get dusty. However, if more clients need me to use Quark I won't turn my nose up at them. Quark isn't a way of life, it is only a tool to me.

rob,

I believe that stitching is an on-screen side effect of the "smooth line art" setting. If you turn it off (or is it on?) it should go away. It may or may not be worth it to lose the anti-aliasing. Adobe is aware of this issue, though it turns out to be really difficult to eliminate in all possible situations.

Joe,

You write:

I only say InDesign is pioneering, because it's the only mainstream app that can use OT fonts at the moment

I'm sure you and most of the people in this thread know what you actually meant, but just for the benefit of any lurkers, I should say:

- there are very few apps that have shipped in the last five years or so that do not work pretty well with OpenType fonts. However, many publishing and graphics applications don't speak Unicode (and therefore can't use any extended language support, if present in the font), and/or don't support OpenType layout features (and therefore can't get at added typographic goodies in the font, such as built-in small caps, more ligatures, whatever).

- Besides InDesign, Illustrator and Photoshop are both fairly fluent in Unicode and OpenType layout. Premiere and AfterEffects both speak Unicode, too.

Cheers,

T

> Grant, I was referring to Nick's disappointment that
> OT implementation in InDesign is botched ...

Ah.

Nick: would you be so kind as to elucidate on the botchiness? I'm curious on how you would approach OT feature implementation. Do you find access to certain features futzed in ID? Or are the features simply not working properly in ID. Just wondering.

Joe: re the colors -- there really were no Pantone colors anywhere in InDesign 2.0! This bug was fixed with 2.1.

Grant: re "OT botched" in InD, there are several problems. To begin with, the OT commands are buried on a 2nd-level submenu. It would be nice to have an interface which showed the user at a glance what features were available for a particular font -- Basic, Faux, or OT -- and allowed one to select a piece of text and just click on buttons to see the effect, rather than "click-drag-drag-release" every time. Secondly, the major issue of "is it or isn't it" faux small caps is not resolved. Ultimately, OT features should not be in an add-on menu, but integrated. It's unfortunate that they were not a more integral part of the InDesign coding from its inception, because the timing was concurrent.

The OT palette is a work in progress, and is more progressed in Illustrator CS than in InDesign CS. And I am PLEASED that it's getting better all the time!

Thomas, my biggest reason to use the Adobe packages is: I surf, I never use pulldown menus and the keyboard shortcuts are almost the same for each application. Speed is good

Jon: re embarrassment: while I view myself as an educator rather than a trainer, and yes, we are preparing them for the CS dominant future, nonetheless many design students, who pay hefty tuition fees, are pissed that they have had to learn a ••••-load of applications for just about every niche of the design profession, and they still don't "fit the bill" for many, many entry level jobs.

No matter how Bolshie a teacher one is, one still represents the establishment, hence the embarrassment.

Tiffany, when do you find InDesign to be slow? Do you see it when you're dealing with lots of text? Lots of pages? Lots of images? Or just all the time?

Curious.

At all times. But, moreso when a lot of images are on the page.

I have owned InDesign for several years.

I was most disappointed because it would not open PageMaker files. I needed to first upgrade to Adobe's latest version of PageMaker.

Never bothered until right now to import my New PageMaker files. I just did, it imports but what a mess.

Furthermore I have no idea where to start fixing the mess.

I will use InDesign to write my mother then back to PageMaker.

It would be easier to hand set it most of these files in hot metal.

Gerald always has something amusing to say. But I feel (or rather felt) your pain. I hated InD 2 (it was terribly slow), but when I tried CS I realized Quark just wasn't good enough. Quark was easy for me to learn, and InD's learning curve isn't too steep. I think that's where the future is. If I were the company I'd bet on InD.

I just remembered

Nick
Thanks for the clarification of the situation, I can easily imagine being the guy on both sides of that situation, and this makes it clear.

I doubt that I'm the only guy in the world that thinks many requirements for entry level positions are far out of line both in terms of their demands and the return they're willing to pay.

Jon

When I see nasty notchy blocks of justified copy, I shiver and think of the days before I had the paragraph composer. I get angry about dongles. Even worse: one undo. I hated Quark every minute I used it (starting in 1994). When InD came out I bought the first copy. When my OS9 machine crashed (we all remember those days), I was amazed to find the project I was working on happily waiting for me when I re-opened InDesign. It was slow, but in that moment I was sold.

I do use multiple graphics platforms. For web work, I use the macromedia suite (photoshop for the web? yuck) and BBEdit. I rarely mix the two suites, however. I still have a soft spot in my heart for Deneba Canvas (bet you never heard of it). It's a do-everything graphics app that my Dad bought me when I was a kid (mostly because it was so cheap). I acutally used it my first year of design school, because it's all I could afford. Now it's marketed to engineers.

As for competition for Photoshop: how do we know how good photoshop would be if it had some serious competition? Maybe it would be faster, or have new features we haven't thought of; maybe it wouldn't cost so much. I love Photoshop, but I wish it had some friendly competition.

As for botched OpenType support: I've talked about this before, but why should supported features be defined by the application? Why shouldn't they be defined by the type designer? For example, why can't I add four different ligature sets to a font. Why do I have to put them in the "titling alternates" feature, just so I can access them? It's times like this that I'm saddened at Apple's lousy job of promoting AAT, and that I'll probably never see AAT features supported in Adobe apps.

I actually agree with Christian on competition. I actually hope that the InDesign/QuarkXPress rivalry lasts a good long while. Both applications will benefit, as will end users. Except for people who have to do output and stuff, who will have to know and use both apps where they otherwise would only have to deal with one.

> why should supported features be defined by the application?

Because that's the only way for the application to know what's going on in the line of text. And such knowledge is important for a number of things, including... multi-line composition. I had a discussion with some of the Apple folks about it once, and we agreed that it would not be possible for an app to do multi-line composition and also use the GX/AAT Line Layout Manager.

Maybe the recent changes in the AAT architecture will have fixed this situation. I'll have to ask some time.

> Why do I have to put them in the "titling alternates" feature, just so I can access them?

I think you're doing yourself a disservice by making messed-up features, but I understand the impulse. I certainly agree that it's frustrating that not all OT features are supported by the existing OT savvy apps. And I can understand the designer's desire for arbitrary features.

> I'll probably never see AAT features supported in Adobe apps

I feel pretty safe saying "never" on that proposition. Apple chose to back a single-platform horse and refused to open it up. They dug their own grave on this score.

Have you ever done any significant feature programming in AAT? Programming them thar state machines is quite a pain. (But at least the performance is acceptable on early 90s hardware.)

Regards,

T

>Why shouldn't they be defined by the type designer?

That's a great idea, Chris, and I agree with you on principle.
But you can do it at the moment, you just have to create a different font for each ligature set, and those options would actually have more prominence in the InD palette, being identified in the "style" window/field.

In fact, I would say that a comprehensive set of alternate ligatures does qualify as a separate style.

There's nothing to stop type designers circumventing the InD set-up, by creating an OT "small cap" font with SC glyphs encoded to the standard character. Just like the way Type1 and TrueType SC fonts work.

A putative OT Mrs Eaves, with the two sizes of small caps, would have to take that route, although your idea that the two SC options should appear in the features menu makes more sense.

Heh. I was going to correct that mixed metaphor, but it's so disturbing that I thought I'd leave it. Opening up a horse... ewww.

T

> > > Because that's the only way for the application to know what's going > on in the line of text. And such knowledge is important for a number > of things, including... multi-line composition.

I'll have to take your word for it on this one. I don't know enough about the internal workings of either to make a statement.

> I think you're doing yourself a disservice by making messed-up > features, but I understand the impulse.

True. I try not to for commercial releases, but I do it for myself all the time.

> Apple chose to back a single-platform horse and refused to open it up. > They dug their own grave on this score.

I know =( I've been suffering like difficulties as a Mac user since forever.

> Programming them thar state machines is quite a pain.

As a matter of fact, it's such a pain that I haven't figured them out yet. However, the ligature/character switching is a piece of cake, and that's mostly what I do with OpenType anyway. "Significant" programming is a pain no matter what you're working on, though : )

> you just have to create a different font for each ligature set

I've thought of that. It's just so simple and beautiful to turn on one character, without having to install an entirely new font. What's more, with features that aren't mutually exclusive, you could conceivably have tons of different combinations with just a few features. In the mean time I will have to make different combinations myself and package them as different fonts, instead of leaving the combinations up to the type setter, which is what I'd rather do.

> >

I desperately wish I could switch to InDesign CS, because:

a. I'd love to join the OpenType revolution;

b. I'd love to jump through many fewer hoops to make good, small PDFs; and

c. I'd love to not have to use Quark 4.1 in Classic, now that I'm finally on a G5 running Panther, because Font Agent Pro is not playing well with it (fortunately the company has given me a couple of beta releases that are helping out).

My problem is, at work, the client for whom I do the vast majority (easily 90%) of my print-layout work has another vendor with whom I have to work closely, and he won't budge from Quark.

I guess I should just get InDesign CS for myself for my freelance projects and just live a double-app life for a while, until I either quit the Quark-using client or convince the other vendor to leap with me into the beautiful modern day.

> In fact, I would say that a comprehensive set of alternate ligatures does qualify as a separate style.

Certainly it's distinct. But a comprehensive set of small caps is also a separate style. Really, the whole dividing line between styling within a font and separate fonts in a family is mostly pretty arbitrary.

> There's nothing to stop type designers circumventing the InD set-up, by creating an OT "small cap" font with SC glyphs encoded to the standard character. Just like the way Type1 and TrueType SC fonts work.

Sure! That doesn't do much fundamental damage to the underlying text storage. Having fonts where ligatures are encoded as VWXYZ and the like, though, that's a real problem.

> A putative OT Mrs Eaves, with the two sizes of small caps, would have to take that route, although your idea that the two SC options should appear in the features menu makes more sense.

Urm. Mrs Eaves has been shipping in OpenType format for quite a while now (a year or more I think). There is an OT feature called "petite caps" that specifically allows a second set of different-sized small caps.

These days, for arbitrary stuff like this, one probably ought to put it in the "stylistic sets" features. Leastways, that's how I'd do it. It would be a relatively short-term workaround to put them in separate fonts, and has disadvantages as Christian says.

Christian wrote:

> "Significant" programming is a pain no matter what you're working on, though.

Mmmm. Well, sort of. You can do contextual stuff pretty easily in OpenType, while it is reportedly quite a challenge in AAT.

Cheers,

T

BTW, for those interested in InDesign, here are a few key resources:

- there's an excellent InDesign mailing list hosted by http://www.Blueworld.com

- Adobe's InDesign user forums at http://www.adobeforums.com

- Your local InDesign User Group (IDUG), if your city has one. See http://www.indesignusergroup.com

I should get back to preparing my talk for tonight, actually. I'm speaking at the Seattle IDUG meeting at 6:30....

Cheers,

T

I've read all the posts and i was amazed that no one marked one of the most remarcable issue about InDesign: his new hyphenation engine. It is not state of the art yet, but I think it the best money can buy. I mean there are better ones, but there are free (thinkin about prof Knuth's TeX hyphenation algorithm).

@Popescu Cezar
about the hyphenation: actually, InDesign2 used Knuth's TeX-algorithm. InDesign3 (CS) improved the algorithm, so now InDesign does _better_ hyphenation than TeX (source: comp.text.tex or de.comp.text.tex).

Perhaps Thomas Phinney can comment, if my information is true.

cheers, markus

Markus:

"now InDesign does _better_ hyphenation than TeX (source: comp.text.tex)"

found nothing on google. where exactly?

thanx

cezar (this is your first name, isn't it?):

I read this in

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=20ceae3e.0403090701.27d5bcaa%40posting.google.com

but that's in german. it is said:
until version 1.5 ID used the (slightly improved) algorithm of Knuth (adobe bought some URW patents of zapf's HZ software, which used knuth's hyphenation algorithm). since v2 ID has another algorithm, which should be superior to the prior one.

another reference could be

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=2cce5e4a.12%40webx.la2eafNXanI&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dindesign%2Bknuth%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3D2cce5e4a.12%2540webx.la2eafNXanI%26rnum%3D1

but it's horrible to read in google, since line breaks are missing. there is also a comment of thomas phinney in this thread, so he might not comment on this again here.

InDesign uses a modified version of the HZ justification algorithm, which in turn may owe something to TeX and other multi-line justification algorithms.

I would not assume that this is a stationary target; InDesign's justification improved from 1.5 to 2.0, and may be further improved in the future. (Which is about all I can say on that score.)

There's also InDesign's optical kerning algorithm, which is also based on technology from the former URW. I don't know of any non Adobe application that has anything similar.

Cheers,

T

There are several ongoing and detailed discussions about Quark vs. InDesign--including many real world pain points--at the below URL.

http://indesign.iampariah.com/

I use quark only when i have to. i haven't figgered out how to import text with Xtags into InD yet, so I just do it in Quark, save the document and then open my quark document in InD. In fact, I first started learning InD when I was assigned to work on a project that was created in Quark, but for some reason it wouldn't open with the version i was working with. I opened it up in InD and have been using it as my mainstay layout program ever since.

Markus:
The message was posted in adobe.typography , not comp.text.tex. And yes, Cezar isn't my family name.

Thomas wrote:
begin_quote
InDesign uses a modified version of the HZ justification algorithm, which in turn may owe something to TeX and other multi-line justification algorithms.
end_quote

Hermann Zaph never finished the HZ program, it's still work in progress. It has nothing to do (except some similar concepts) with TeX line-breakin algorithm.

begin_quote
There's also InDesign's optical kerning algorithm, which is also based on technology from the former URW. I don't know of any non Adobe application that has anything similar.
end_quote

There's pdftex, recently improved http://vntex.sourceforge.net/private/thanh/pdftex that do marginal kerning and dinamic font expansion to achive uniform spacing within a paragraph.

pdftex is certainly relevant to both optical margin alignment and justification systems. But it isn't really related to InDesign's optical kerning system.

The optical kerning is a replacement for the built-in kerning in a font. It adjusts spacing on a glyph-by-glyph basis. It is independent of justification systems and optical margin alignment.

Regards,

T

Thomas: it's true, pdftex has nothing related to optical kerning.

But the theoreticaly problem remains: does a program (InDesign) do a better job than a careful type designer?

Or: if i bought a font, i expect to use it at full capacity, not only the letters' shape, but the kerning pairs as well.

What do you think about it?

Of course, this is only an option. By default, InD uses the kerning built into the font. Personally, I'd use optical kerning on almost any shareware font, and some retail fonts. When it comes to really well made fonts, I still use it for unusual letter or symbol combos that are unkerned, or other special situations. It saves me taking the time to kern the combination manually, and usually comes out with about the same result.

Hrant will swear that optical kerning does a better job than all but the very best type designers. I'm not yet convinced of that, myself.

Cheers,

T

> The optical kerning is a replacement for the built-in kerning in a font.

It's more accurate to say that it's a replacement for the font's entire spacing.

> does a program (InDesign) do a better job than a careful type designer?

No.
But it can -and does- do a better job than 95% of type designs, and probably 90% of type designERs. The remaining 5/10% is still [numerically] a lot though.

Thomas, the difference is most obvious outside of the basic alphanumerics, which many type designers often totally ignore.

hhp

I'd go even further, Thomas, with my reservations about optical kerning.

Unless a typographer takes the time to actually compare the effects of Optical Kerning on different kinds of fonts, he/she won't know whether it will improve, leave unaffected, or make worse the spacing.

As an example of where it makes things worse, consider good old Times.



In the top sample, there is no kerning.
Below, optical kerning. (I have adjusted the tracking so that word lengths match, as Optical Kerning is equivalent to about minus-15 of tracking with this face.)

You can see that optical kerning has added space between a-l, and removed it between l-b, making the rhythm of vertical strokes in those first three characters uneven,

Between "o-w-n" it has effectively moved the w to the left, again making an uneven distribution of the heavier strokes. So, it looks like the algorithms, concenred with "negative" spaces don't "see" the overall impression of a rhythm of dominant strokes which a typeface makes.

The character shapes and the sidebearing widths of typefaces such as Times were specifically designed NOT to be kerned. Only in the "impossible" character combinations, such as T,V,W,Y followed by a round lower-case characters, were kerns made, for instance by the Linotype machine, with "Two-Letter Logotypes".

Nick, "lb" is worse, but every other pair is better. And Times is a well-spaced font - most aren't.

Plus Indy's optical spacing is sensitive to point size* - so it would help to know the size you used. I'm guessing 12 or 14.

* Another big advantage.

hhp

>but every other pair is better.

Anybody else have opinions?

Anyway, I'm not talking about pairs, but about the overall color of the type.

And even if my opinion is in the minority, it is still an opinion, and that suggests that "kerning preference" varies with individual taste, and that one-size-fits-all standardization is not a good idea.

You figure of Optical Kerning improving 95% of typefaces is taken from thin air, and is completely absurd. (Just try it on a cursive script ;-)

I tested it on a handful of typefaces to start with, and found that it is just as likely to make fonts worse!

>optical spacing is sensitive to point size

That sample was at 96pt, but I tried it at 9.6, and the kerning seems to be the same, although the tracking is different. (Rather like the marvelous Quark Tracking Utility, but not user-modifiable.)

> "kerning preference" varies with individual taste

Only during deliberative reading; immersion precludes "taste".

When you try to evaluate something like this, you have to look "behind" it so to speak, to see what it would be seen as in the parafovea for example.

BTW, "rhythm" is in your imagination. :-) It's "pattern".

> taken from thin air

Don't be such a lawyer, dude.

> Just try it on a cursive script

I'm talking about text fonts.

> .... the kerning seems to be the same

Then there's something wrong with your test. I've done close measurements: Indy's optical spacing is "bi-linear": a steep line from 4 to 12 point, a shallow line from 12 to 72, and flat on either side.

BTW, about the tracking: messing with the tracking will skew the results, since Indy's optical tracking doesn't (and if you think about it maybe shouldn't) take that into account (look at the behavior of "boundary conditions" like the right of the "r"). So it's best to leave the tracking zero, certainly for testing.

hhp

Nick -- It looks more like Indy has adjusted both sides of the 'o', more than moving the 'w'. I think Indy's solution in this specific triplet is marginally better. Basically the Times 'w' spacing needs a little help. I don't like how Indy has opened up 'ni', especially since it closed up 'lb'.

Hrant -- it's not so much that 'lb' is worse; *alb* is worse.

My opinion, based only on relatively few opportunities that I've used Indy, is that I prefer not to use Indy's optical kerning -- but that is probably because I try to use only top-quality, well-spaced fonts. The one exception to this is that I have applied it selectively to things like drop caps or other mixed font/size situations. This can indeed be useful.

-- K.

> that is probably because I try to use only top-quality, well-spaced fonts.

Bingo.
But one day if you want to use the ravishing (but tongue-tied) Mrs Eaves, Indy's optical spacing will save the day.

hhp

I have used optical spacing with Poetica and, especially with alternate caps, it seems to be noticeably better than the original spacing.

>

In my experience, InD optical is best used sparingly. Aside from the=20 performance issues, I agree with Nick that it more often mucks things=20 up when you start with a well spaced font. Even with a poorly spaced=20 font, InD can only help so much. I used to set preliminary text samples=20=

in a font, to get an idea about which characters needed to change=20 before I spaced it properly. I found that InD optical only *influences*=20=

the spacing, as opposed to replacing it as Hrant suggests. So if you=20 have a poorly spaced font to begin with (e.g. ScanFont's auto-spacing),=20=

InD can only go so far to make things better--though it can improve=20 things. I've found that it's more useful for titling since so many=20 fonts are spaced for 12pt: even titling fonts. The optical size=20 compensations are definitely cool.

>

Hrant, I'm doing all the work here!

My argument is made with visual examples and testing, rather than theories about immersive reading and the way optical kerning works.

Let's see some visual proof, in one-on-one testing, of the superiority of Optical Kerning.

I've made some refinements to refute your criticism. I've made this sample from 9 pt. type. Then I blurred it, to highlight the rhythm of dominant strokes, and the broad shapes of inter-character spaces.

By bunching up "lbow", optical kerning has worsened the spacing here. Perhaps it's an anomaly, but this was the first character sequence I chose, off the top of my head, because it has some difficult combinations that I often use in the type design process.

Times: Above, no kerning. Below, Indy Optical Kerning.

I've been doing the work for 6 years! And not just in theory (derived not from my dreams, but empirical and anecdotal evidence), but in InDesign evaluation too : Where do you think I got the "bi-linear" thing?

> Let's see some visual proof, in one-on-one testing, of the superiority of Optical Kerning.

You're doing a fine job! :-)
Although you need to be more rigorous, like by working with frequent words.
http://www.themicrofoundry.com/s_quality.html
(Far right.)

hhp

>I've been doing the work for 6 years!

I meant work for this thread. I'd like to see examples of your empirical testing, not just take your word for the conclusions.

>more rigorous, like by working with frequent words

OK, how about this. Again, it's 9 pt type, Times Roman, above unkerned, below Indy optical kerning.

Indy adds kerning between a and n, making for more uneven text color. QED.

> I meant work for this thread.

No, because you brought "my theories" into it.
As you should: everything is related.

> QED.

Right. Two words (one of them a non-word) from one font is more than enough testing.
And nevermind that the default spacing in that "and" is too tight for 9 point.

hhp

>"my theories"

Hey, you're the bouma guy.

>Two words (one of them a non-word) from one font is more than enough testing

One word is not comprehensive enough to make a solid generalisation, but if optical kerning can't get "and" in Times Roman right....

Anyway, I checked out a few more good old serifed faces, and optical kerning does the same thing in all of them for the "a" -- adding extra space after, when a vertical stem is next.

That is really dysfunctional, because all the faces were designed so that the tail serif and sidebearing on the "a" provides both the appropriate "breathing space" and "connectivity" with following letters.

The right sidebearing on trad serifed "a"s is less than for other characters with lower right serifs, because the top of the right side of the a is curved back, away from the following letter. this is why the serif curves up, to compensate, to make the letters appear more connected, yet without touching.

The right vertical stem of the "a" is designed to be a certain distance from following vertical stems; and the serif of the "a" is designed to be very close to serifs that follow, yet Optical Kerning looks at that minimum distance and won't allow it, thereby pushing the adjacent stems too far apart, creating uneven color.
QED.

> I checked out a few more good old serifed faces

I'd be curious to find out which.

> QED

Hey, weren't you the "it's a matter of taste" guy?

hhp

>I'd be curious to find out which.

Take your pick. It does it for them all.

>Hey, weren't you the "it's a matter of taste" guy?

Originally, and I continue to have my preferences.

However, I thought you wanted categoric proof, according to your own criteria (from the Microsite) "By ensuring

> I thought you wanted categoric proof

Nah, I'm not that kind of guy. Just "enough evidence" is generally plenty for me.

> .... fails your criteria?

I think it could be better, and that it messes up sometimes. But from what I've seen (previously and in this thread), it looks like it improves the overall spacing of most fonts. Maybe 90% is too much, but it still feels way above 75% to me.

Plus the good news is that:
1) You can somewhat predict when you shouldn't use it (based on the source of the font at hand).
2) For point sizes outside the original "intended range" it does much better than brute tracking.

hhp