Nick would you like some tea?
Thanks Randy, it's just gone 4:20 here.
Now it looks like everything has been said, it is time for a summary.
My main two points for starting this topic are:1. Technically skilled font developers don't necessarily have to do additional stuff like scripting because relative complex functionality can be used off the shelf in a simple and economical way.2. Non-technically skilled font developers don't necessarily have to do additional stuff like scripting because relative complex functionality can be used off the shelf in a simple and economical way.
Overlooking the reactions, I can conclude that I hardly succeeded to convince my audience. There seem to be a couple of arguments for this:A. Relatively simple stuff like for instance command files in readable English is considered complex still.B. There seems to be a preference for a mainstream 'one-program-fits-all' approach.C. The price tag.D. The offered options don't fit the current work flow.
A. Basically I don't think it is possible to make the control over extensive batch functions much easier than it is in the DTL FontTools. As the trade of the font producer is and has always been anchored in technology, it is inevitable that to a certain level technical control and insight are necessary. Although type designers sometimes may see font technology merely as a vehicle for their designs, the existence and the success of a type design relies for a part on the vehicle itself.
B. One would expect especially from (type) designers the attitude to widen the horizon whenever possible and to look for the best available options to solve certain problems. How does one want to persuade a potential customer to use a new typeface instead of for instance the mainstream typefaces Times New Roman and/or Arial, if one himself is not willing to look further for improvements and innovations?
Of course, one can wait for certain functionality to become available in the preferred 'one-program-fits-all' in time, but if this implies that in the meantime concessions have to be made concerning certain functionality in produced and delivered products, I wonder if this is a sensible approach.
C. Looking at the discussions about pricing and the relative small amounts of money that are subject, I can only conclude that the economic crisis is structural in (parts of) the font business. Furthermore, if developers are reluctant to pay for software, how can they expect people to pay for their products?
D. If changing a work flow does not improve things and is not costs effective, one should not do this, of course.
Concerning the DTL FontTools web site, I will review the texts again, but one can hardly expect from the Dutch Type Library that we make things similar to what others do. To be honest, I am not sure if changing the web site would really be of importance, because Light versions of the DTL FontTools with sufficient documentation are available for testing already.
Concerning Learn FontMasterUtilites Fast, one should ask Leslie Cabarga, I reckon.
Anyway, it is time for me to focus on the font production again. Thank you very much for all your comments.
Frank E. Blokland
Frank, you're not helping your cause by inferring that I am A unprofessional*, B unadventurous, and C cheap and hypocritical.
*Productivity is not the same thing as professionalism.
There is a distinction between professional services and professional products.
Certainly, a professional font technician should be expected to know all about batch processing.
However, considering a font as a professional tool, its quality is not dependent on the amount of batch processing involved in its production.
Nonetheless, I will be attending the workshops at TypeCon this year, so there's hope for me yet.
The less our heart is into something, the more we try to nonetheless get good results while avoiding it. And usually we succeed well enough. There is no singular optimal method.
I'm not a person of many words, so I'll state my opinion rather briefly:
If I think I can do it better, and I'm willing to put in the effort to do so, then I see no reason why I can't.
This thread was a good read. I'll remember to consider a wide set of tools and think about what workflow would be suitable for me if I were to get serious about making fonts. Being interested in CJK font development, I've lately been thinking about the limitations of the all-in-one font development software, so I'll definitely explore the modular options.
Font spelunking is a great term of art.
For those unable to find their way, the OTM manual provides a helpful map: