Hello everyone,
I am currently working on a very simple, blocky and display typeface, and I'd like the spacing and kerning to be treated in a very simplified way. While working with KO I get the feeling that it treats glyphs differently depending on their type (If they are UC, LC, Figures, etc.). For example: the design and metrics of my /O is exactly the same as the /zero yet KO says that /zero/zero is too tight compared to /O/O.
Is there anyway to override this?
Thanks in advance for any hints or tips.
PS. Thanks Tim for the great tool, been enjoying it so far.
Different spacing depending on type of glyphs?
-
Tim Ahrens
- Site Admin
- Posts: 343
- Joined: 11 Jul 2019
Re: Different spacing depending on type of glyphs?
It’s difficult to say without having the file. If you want you can send it to me.
In any case, if the design and metrics of the /O is exactly the same as the /zero then you should not set /zero/zero as well as /O/O as models – one is enough. What happens if you simply switch /zero/zero to auto? Which autokerning value does it get?
In any case, if the design and metrics of the /O is exactly the same as the /zero then you should not set /zero/zero as well as /O/O as models – one is enough. What happens if you simply switch /zero/zero to auto? Which autokerning value does it get?
Re: Different spacing depending on type of glyphs?
Hi Tim, thanks for replying.
The autokerning value of /zero/zero was +20 (/O/O was set at 0). Anyway, it was kind of fixed by adding some other pairs as models. But just to clarify, does KO make any distinction and have different general rules depending on the type of glyphs it's kerning? like making UC generally loser than LC for example.
Best,
The autokerning value of /zero/zero was +20 (/O/O was set at 0). Anyway, it was kind of fixed by adding some other pairs as models. But just to clarify, does KO make any distinction and have different general rules depending on the type of glyphs it's kerning? like making UC generally loser than LC for example.
Best,