[Am-info] Re: True-Type fonts "gone!"

[Marcus de Geus]

In reply to a message from "Eric Mathew Hopper" <hopper@omnifarious.org>
dated 2002-08-19 13:44:39 -0500 (Mon):

Hi Eric,

Sorry, another late/long reply. I hope I haven't broken the OT time limit.

> Since TrueType is actually a standard that's widely supported and widely
implemented

In this case, it's an "industry standard", as in "Windows printer",
"WinModem", "Windows-compatible PC chipset". A standard is something you
arrive at or set, or that becomes accepted as such, for the common good, not
to further proprietary success. Whatever you may think of Adobe, the only
way PostScript became a standard was through its general acceptance by the
printing industry because it was a very elegant solution (most good software
is) with a future. As I remember it from reading somewhere (perhaps someone
else can confirm this or correct me), TrueType was born out of Microsoft's
refusal to come to terms with (and subsequent animosity towards) Adobe over
licensing fees for PostScript/Type 1, coupled with Bill's perception (which
still holds true, thanks to the guiding hand from Redmond) of the PC as a
second-rate graphical display system that would require too much effort to
bring it up to scratch. So, in true MS fashion, rather than put in some
effort, a second-rate option was pushed to become the "industry standard".
Sadly, thanks to monopolist tactics, "widely supported/implemented" is far
from synonymous with "high-quality".

> with no people threatening suits over it...

Not yet, but who knows... <g>

> I would find an education on why one format was better than the other to
be elucidating though.

If you want to know more about the two different typeface systems (and
others), ask Google or any other search engine for a match on e.g.
"TrueType, Type 1, versus". There's lots of relevant info around (and some
not so).


I have added some more personal observations below.


My reason for preferring the Adobe typeface system is that to me the whole
concept of TrueType, i.e. that of bloating typeface definition files with
proprietary output device software, stinks. I maintain that a typeface
definition (like any data file) should contain the bare essentials (in this
case for defining a typeface), and nothing else. Special formatting tricks
(resolution adaptation, anti-aliasing, whatever) should be left to the
output device system to ensure that the software (the typeface definition
and page layout) remains independent of the hardware (the output device),
thus ensuring forward compatibility. But then, Microsoft weren't (and still
aren't) concerned with such trivialities as forward compatibility. Their
objective was to make sure TrueType looked better on the average user's
screen of the time, no matter how awful the result on paper or future
display systems would be.

When I create a PostScript file, I can view it on-screen, send it to my
local printer (as in "HP LaserJet 4M"), or mail it to my local printer (as
in "person who operates a printing business"), and each time the output will
be of the highest available quality -- and all using the same file.

BTW, PostScript does not always require proprietary (i.e. expensive)
hardware solutions for hardcopy output systems. Many software systems
(GhostScript, NextStep, OS/2) include a PostScript interpreter that will use
local printer drivers to produce pretty good output results on many
different types of raster printers. Mind you, the quality of the end product
in this case is determined to a large extent by the quality of the drivers
-- and we all know what they can be like.

While I'm on the subject, let me dispel a myth. Type 1 fonts are not
expensive. Granted, some companies (Adobe included) offer fonts (or rather,
typeface sets) that cost a bit of money, but if you look closely, you'll
find that they are worth every penny, simply because they offer extremely
high quality. If you're a professional printer (which I'm not, BTW), you
simply cannot afford to buy lesser offerings. This is not to say that other
outfits do not offer high-quality fonts, but they too will expect you to pay
for their work. Even so, some companies offer pretty good typeface sets for
very little money. A decade ago, one of my best buys ever (apart from the
couple of Adobe fonts I have) was the InfiniType/InfiniType Plus set. For a
few dozen dollars this included not only hundreds of typeface families (some
of them very useful, some for incidental use only, some very beautiful,
some, let's say, interesting, but all of them of very high technical
quality) in both Type 1 and TrueType versions, but also a DOS scaling engine
(which at the time came in pretty handy) and a manual with a comprehensive
explanation of typeface design as well as some useful hints on good typeface
use and text formatting.

If people want fonts for free, they should look for real freeware, but they
should also be prepared to accept significant quality penalties, either in
the form of reduced character sets (not a big problem in many cases) or in
the form of crappy design or coding. The time and effort wasted in sifting
through the rubble to find the few acceptable -- in some cases extremely
good -- ones is what others pay Adobe and other typeface suppliers to avoid.

On the subject of litigation (or at least, threatening suits), if InfiniType
were still around today, I am pretty certain that they too, like Adobe and
URW (many of whose products IT licensed, BTW), would be taking action
against the unauthorized distribution of their products. Remember, we're
talking software here, and software of a kind that involves a lot of
painstaking work to get it right -- like all good software. These typefaces
were never released as freeware; they are the companies' way of earning
money. Sadly, the inclusion of "free" typefaces (some of dubious quality at
best) with many leading word-processing packages appears to have led many
people to believe that all typefaces are, or should be, available for free.
Nevertheless, the right to appropriate copyrighted material (also known as
stealing someone else's product) applies as little to typefaces as it does
to music or computer programs. If you want fonts (or music, or computer
programs) for free, look for freeware. Good typeface designers tend to get
paid for their skills, so good typefaces tend to cost money.

Regards,

Marcus de Geus
--
marcus@degeus.com
http://www.degeus.com