Make full release (variable + static) for GitHub, then link to it from Fraunces site #186
Comments
|
Great point! Thanks for the feedback :) |
|
Once the first v1.000 version is finally ready, I look forwards to this :D |
|
By the time this is ready, GF may have some Github Actions pre-made to make this semi-automated |
Still not ready, so a simple manual release ZIP uploaded will be fine for the 1.000 :) |
|
@thundernixon Pending confirmation in #247, I'd like to request the build script build 9 static families as follows for 162 styles, based on the 3 x 3 x 9 x 2 combinations implied by this graphic on the minisite, and include a
I believe that nets out to the following 9 families, using rules of eliding the default, and assuming the default optical size is 72 pt, wonkiness is 0, and softness is 0.
and the following are all 162 |
|
Okay, thanks for this specific request! This seems good, though I do have a few questions on the defaults that are blocking me. Can you and @sponcey please answer them at #247 (comment)? |
arrowtype
changed the title
|
Due to reasons explained at #247 and further clarified in an email, I am making the following families (elided styles are wrapped in [square brackets]):
The family is designed with just 6 weights, skipping the typical "ExtraLight" and "Medium" steps:
Fraunces weight progression (Click to expand)
Plus 2 slants:
So, The family & style naming is a bit off ( |
|
Actually, there is a problem with making style names elided in static fonts as they are in the variable font: it prevents users from installing both variable & static fonts, and using them in situations that are best for each. If we make only the variable font have the simplest name, it allows a font menu to contain:
If Therefore, I feel it is quite important to at least keep the opsz name visible, even if we make the |
|
Sounds good to me :) |
|
Here’s how it is looking in a font menu, with variable + static fonts installed:
The VF family listing now includes both roman & italic styles (this was harder than expected):
(One thought: if there were a way to make sensible names for "Soft" and "ExtraSoft" that were alphabetically ordered, the static families would appear in a slightly more sensible order. But, I can’t really think of better names...) |
|
Softer?
…On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 1:10 PM arrowtype ***@***.***> wrote:
Here’s how it is looking in a font menu, with variable + static fonts
installed:
[image: image]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/45946693/96162967-3b4bf500-0ee7-11eb-953e-d264893cc621.png>
The VF family listing now includes both roman & italic styles (this was
harder than expected):
[image: image]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/45946693/96163039-56b70000-0ee7-11eb-9e93-b09ba9d56355.png>
(One thought: if there were a way to make sensible names for "Soft" and
"ExtraSoft" that were alphabetically ordered, the static families would
appear in a slightly more sensible order. But, I can’t really think of
better names...)
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#186 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALICTKUAG7P5BKMATVYGY2TSK4UGRANCNFSM4LCTZYWA>
.
|
|
Good thinking! It’s a bit different from typical Google Fonts prefixing in weight names, but it is shorter and works better for this case. @sponcey what do you think about [Sharp], Soft, Softer? |
|
How about Very Soft? |
|
Not bad! Though, to match the weight & opsz style names, it should probably be a single word. So, that would be I wonder whether it starts to sound a little bit like a tech company ... as it turns out, there is a VeriSoft FinTech company. I’m not sure whether this is a problem or not. I did find "Velvet" as a word that might work. But, this seems like it could be divisive. Also, it may not be clear whether "Soft" or "Velvet" was the softer style.... |
|
SuperSoft? I think Softer could be fine too... I just want something with a little bit more oomph |
|
Outside opinion (not sure if you're looking for any of that, or if I should
mind my bidness): "Soft" and "Softer" are concise and clear. My favorites so
far.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 8:06 PM, Phaedra Charles [email protected] wrote:
SuperSoft? I think Softer could be fine too... I just want something with a
little bit more oomph
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
|
|
“SuperSoft” may be a bit tricky with name length limitations, but in normal usage, I think a really nice thing is that it creates an appealing "sawtooth" shape in typical text, which will probably subtly improve perceived simplicity & hierarchy in a font menu list:
And, I do agree that it sounds the most "intentional" and balanced in importance, whereas For certain names, e.g. PostScript names and the composed names that will show up in Microsoft Word, the abbreviate will be a little strange ... probably, it will be |
|
As for the main question of this thread, the release package(s), Dave requested:
@davelab6 Do you feel strongly that two separate zips is ideal? My personal feeling is that a single download that includes both – plus some recommendations about what to use where – is the simplest for users on a few fronts. This is what I do for Recursive, and I think it is a fairly good approach.
I will start by making the single download zip as I am fairly convinced in it being the better choice, but I am happy to adjust things if you feel otherwise. |
It's pretty cumbersome to download files directly from a repo's
fonts/folder. Instead, if you set up a release in the proper "Releases" area of the repo, it's much more convenient for people, because you can provide a zip with all files, licensing, and a README together in a one-click download.For example, see https://github.com/arrowtype/recursive/releases. For what is probably an even better example, see https://github.com/rsms/inter/releases.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: