1. Link to read more about font management doesn't work...

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Ladd

2. I am, as ever, almost completely unable to understand the linking structure of this blog. Why don't you clearly link, inside your body text, to whatever you're talking about? Do you not understand that this is how the Web works? You seem to think that links are actually endnotes.

In any event, the "Read" link you have above, which I successfully missed for a very long time (I already *was* reading), of course 404s.

Welcome to the Web. I hope you learn how it works someday.

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Joe Clark

3. Don't know what the big deal is, so he got a link wrong. I usually like Pariah's extensive comments that precede his Read links. Maybe I don't understand blogs.

Here's the link...
http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?14@52.IW1LafdimR6.1@.68908e3c

and if it's a case that this software cuts off characters, the tiny URL is this: http://tinyurl.com/6kwn8

What he's linking to is a great post on Apple's discussion board. I used its info myself to straighten out my OS X font mess in my design studio, and reviewed it in my own site's OS X Font Management resources page:
http://senecadesign.com/designgeek/fonts-osx.html
.... the review is titled "World's Best Forum Post: Pruning Unnecessary Fonts in OS X"

AM

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Anne-Marie

4. Used to run a tiny design firm so I have hundreds of postscript fonts I'd like to start using in OSX but even after reading the apple font PDF and other sites, I can't still can't get a firm answer to several questions:

a) PS fonts came in two parts-screen & printer. If I drag in a postscript's "screen fonts," do I need to drag in the PS printer font even if I'm just outputting to an inkjet?

b) Is it better to drag in or use Font Book's installer?

c) I remember that previously that my fonts were "grouped" so that the Hevetica family didn't take up 10 slots on my font menu (was that ATM?) While the Font Book's font mgmt features are probably enough for me in managing the fonts, is there a new font menu add-on that not only gives me WYSIWYG but 'groups' font 'families.' I know there's that one that gives you a menu oon the right hand bar of the desktop - I don't want that, I want it within my app? Asking too much?

Thanks.

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by jbelkin

5. I think jbelkin is lamenting the lack of ATR, Adobe Type Reunion, in OSX. Yes, that is a shame. Haven't found a replacement for it yet.

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Corin

6. Thank you very much, Anne-Marie--for rising to my defense and for posting the complete link.

Before I saw your comment with the TinyURL, I saw a comment that wasn't validated by its author, informing me that the link was broken. The structure of the URL, with its multiple @ symbols, apparently caused it to be truncated by our blog system. So, I created another TinyURL (again, before seeing that you had already done so), which is now the "Read" link above.

Thus, the "Read" link now works.

Thanks to you and the others who pointed it out to me. I'm sorry it took me a couple of days to fix; Friday I was in the air, and Saturday I spent with my family sans technology.

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Pariah S. Burke

7. Joe,

If you condemn me for a typo, then you are truly petty. I feel no need to present my qualifications or credentials--Google will do that for me--beyond stating the obvious: I am human.

I pasted the correct and full URL--though I would own up to it if I hadn't--and the system broke it. Together we discovered that the @ symbol--or its proximity to other symbols in a URL--caused this system to hiccup. Together we discovered a software bug. My mistake was in not checking the link after publication, a mistake to which I fully admit. It is a mistake that I rectified the moment I became aware of it. More importantly, it was a mistake to which, as a human, I am entitled.

But of course, the broken link isn't your real complaint, is it?

It's a shame you become so combative when you misunderstand something--or is it resentment that the Design Weblog is actually readable while the CSS styling of your own sites (http://blog.fawny.org, for example) is wonderfully accessibile, but profoundly unreadable to the sighted?

I respect your knowledge of online accessibility, and I've agreed with you on a number of points regarding accessibility. As a knowledgeable student of Section 508 Accessibility myself (who also understands from real-world experience how to make things accessible, readable, and legible to the sighted as well as the unsighted), I've also disagreed with you on some points. (Aside: Before you jump on this site's accessiblity or design, I have nothing whatsoever to do with the design/construction of this site, which has a different set of design/construction priorities of which I am admittedly not fully aware and cannot speak to.)

Case in point: You weren't actually reading. You were scanning, looking for keywords, catch-phrases, and other bits that fit into what you wanted to find. When one scans, one doesn't see what one doesn't already expect to see. Had you been reading you would have noticed the "Read" link, offset from the black text by its blue color, the underline, and the icon beside it, all of which are hierarchical indicators of a hyperlink.

If you were looking for a hyperlink, as you stated, you should have recognized these ten year old standards that indicate to even the most inexperienced AOL user the presence of a hyperlink.

Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with the way the web works.

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Pariah S. Burke

8. J Belkin:

Thanks for the comment.

a & b: You really do need a font management utility like Font Book (or something better like Extensis Suitcase) to avoid problems with fonts. Use the installer/activator. As a font user since the creation of soft fonts in the late Eighties, and as someone who has seen so many different font problems over the years, that's what I recommend.

c) You aren't asking too much. :-)

Check out You Control:Fonts, from You Software. http://www.yousoftware.com/fonts/

From that site:

"You Control: Fonts supports the following applications.

Adobe Photoshop CS
Adobe Illustrator CS
Adobe InDesign CS
QuarkXPress 6
Microsoft Word vX
Microsoft Word 2004
TextEdit
Macromedia Freehand MX
Macromedia Flash MX
Macromedia Fireworks MX
Keynote
Microsoft Excel 2004
Microsoft PowerPoint 2004
Suitcase X1

Additionally, You Control: Fonts will work with any true Cocoa application."

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Pariah S. Burke

9. I've also found Suitcase to be the only way of controlling fonts in an OS X environment. Font Book just didn't havk it for us, altough it may have improved by now. The early versions of Suitcase for OS X were touch and go, but now - as long as you let Suitcase manage System fonts also, it makes life a lot easier.

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by R Shadbolt

10. I'm with R Shadbolt. I've tried Font Reserve and Font Book, but, since ATM died (http://design.weblogsinc.com/entry/3240347581392124/) Suitcase is the only way to go. It's not perfect, but it is the best out there.

You Control:Fonts, by the way, isn't font management. It only controls the display of fonts on the typeface menu. I don't officially endorse it, of course, but I've used it (minimally) with success.

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Pariah S. Burke

11. Typeface shapes are actually not protected by copyright, they were actually explicitly excluded by Congress. The binary form may be, but anyone can build new fonts with the same shape.

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Fazal Majid

12. Link to read more about font management doesn't work...

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Ladd

13. I am, as ever, almost completely unable to understand the linking structure of this blog. Why don't you clearly link, inside your body text, to whatever you're talking about? Do you not understand that this is how the Web works? You seem to think that links are actually endnotes.

In any event, the "Read" link you have above, which I successfully missed for a very long time (I already *was* reading), of course 404s.

Welcome to the Web. I hope you learn how it works someday.

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Joe Clark

14. Don't know what the big deal is, so he got a link wrong. I usually like Pariah's extensive comments that precede his Read links. Maybe I don't understand blogs.

Here's the link...
http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?14@52.IW1LafdimR6.1@.68908e3c

and if it's a case that this software cuts off characters, the tiny URL is this: http://tinyurl.com/6kwn8

What he's linking to is a great post on Apple's discussion board. I used its info myself to straighten out my OS X font mess in my design studio, and reviewed it in my own site's OS X Font Management resources page:
http://senecadesign.com/designgeek/fonts-osx.html
.... the review is titled "World's Best Forum Post: Pruning Unnecessary Fonts in OS X"

AM

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Anne-Marie

15. Used to run a tiny design firm so I have hundreds of postscript fonts I'd like to start using in OSX but even after reading the apple font PDF and other sites, I can't still can't get a firm answer to several questions:

a) PS fonts came in two parts-screen & printer. If I drag in a postscript's "screen fonts," do I need to drag in the PS printer font even if I'm just outputting to an inkjet?

b) Is it better to drag in or use Font Book's installer?

c) I remember that previously that my fonts were "grouped" so that the Hevetica family didn't take up 10 slots on my font menu (was that ATM?) While the Font Book's font mgmt features are probably enough for me in managing the fonts, is there a new font menu add-on that not only gives me WYSIWYG but 'groups' font 'families.' I know there's that one that gives you a menu oon the right hand bar of the desktop - I don't want that, I want it within my app? Asking too much?

Thanks.

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by jbelkin

16. I think jbelkin is lamenting the lack of ATR, Adobe Type Reunion, in OSX. Yes, that is a shame. Haven't found a replacement for it yet.

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Corin

17. Thank you very much, Anne-Marie--for rising to my defense and for posting the complete link.

Before I saw your comment with the TinyURL, I saw a comment that wasn't validated by its author, informing me that the link was broken. The structure of the URL, with its multiple @ symbols, apparently caused it to be truncated by our blog system. So, I created another TinyURL (again, before seeing that you had already done so), which is now the "Read" link above.

Thus, the "Read" link now works.

Thanks to you and the others who pointed it out to me. I'm sorry it took me a couple of days to fix; Friday I was in the air, and Saturday I spent with my family sans technology.

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Pariah S. Burke

18. Joe,

If you condemn me for a typo, then you are truly petty. I feel no need to present my qualifications or credentials--Google will do that for me--beyond stating the obvious: I am human.

I pasted the correct and full URL--though I would own up to it if I hadn't--and the system broke it. Together we discovered that the @ symbol--or its proximity to other symbols in a URL--caused this system to hiccup. Together we discovered a software bug. My mistake was in not checking the link after publication, a mistake to which I fully admit. It is a mistake that I rectified the moment I became aware of it. More importantly, it was a mistake to which, as a human, I am entitled.

But of course, the broken link isn't your real complaint, is it?

It's a shame you become so combative when you misunderstand something--or is it resentment that the Design Weblog is actually readable while the CSS styling of your own sites (http://blog.fawny.org, for example) is wonderfully accessibile, but profoundly unreadable to the sighted?

I respect your knowledge of online accessibility, and I've agreed with you on a number of points regarding accessibility. As a knowledgeable student of Section 508 Accessibility myself (who also understands from real-world experience how to make things accessible, readable, and legible to the sighted as well as the unsighted), I've also disagreed with you on some points. (Aside: Before you jump on this site's accessiblity or design, I have nothing whatsoever to do with the design/construction of this site, which has a different set of design/construction priorities of which I am admittedly not fully aware and cannot speak to.)

Case in point: You weren't actually reading. You were scanning, looking for keywords, catch-phrases, and other bits that fit into what you wanted to find. When one scans, one doesn't see what one doesn't already expect to see. Had you been reading you would have noticed the "Read" link, offset from the black text by its blue color, the underline, and the icon beside it, all of which are hierarchical indicators of a hyperlink.

If you were looking for a hyperlink, as you stated, you should have recognized these ten year old standards that indicate to even the most inexperienced AOL user the presence of a hyperlink.

Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with the way the web works.

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Pariah S. Burke

19. J Belkin:

Thanks for the comment.

a & b: You really do need a font management utility like Font Book (or something better like Extensis Suitcase) to avoid problems with fonts. Use the installer/activator. As a font user since the creation of soft fonts in the late Eighties, and as someone who has seen so many different font problems over the years, that's what I recommend.

c) You aren't asking too much. :-)

Check out You Control:Fonts, from You Software. http://www.yousoftware.com/fonts/

From that site:

"You Control: Fonts supports the following applications.

Adobe Photoshop CS
Adobe Illustrator CS
Adobe InDesign CS
QuarkXPress 6
Microsoft Word vX
Microsoft Word 2004
TextEdit
Macromedia Freehand MX
Macromedia Flash MX
Macromedia Fireworks MX
Keynote
Microsoft Excel 2004
Microsoft PowerPoint 2004
Suitcase X1

Additionally, You Control: Fonts will work with any true Cocoa application."

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Pariah S. Burke

20. I've also found Suitcase to be the only way of controlling fonts in an OS X environment. Font Book just didn't havk it for us, altough it may have improved by now. The early versions of Suitcase for OS X were touch and go, but now - as long as you let Suitcase manage System fonts also, it makes life a lot easier.

Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by R Shadbolt