Skip to content

Interpolation problems in Recursive[CASL,CRSV,MONO,slnt,wght].ttf #527

Open
Open
Interpolation problems in Recursive[CASL,CRSV,MONO,slnt,wght].ttf#527

Description

@behdad
behdad
opened on Nov 23, 2023

Hello!

This is an automatically-generated report about possible interpolation problems in Recursive[CASL,CRSV,MONO,slnt,wght].ttf, as found in the Google Fonts catalog.

The particular version of the font that was tested was archive:.

To download a PDF version of this report with helpful visuals of the problems, click here; Or to view it on the GitHub website, click here.

The report follows:

Glyph horncombo was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'CASL=1.0':
    Contour 0 start point differs: 0 in '', 48 in 'CASL=1.0'; reversed: False
Glyph one was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'CASL=1.0':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in '', 2 in 'CASL=1.0'; reversed: False
Glyph one.pnum was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'CASL=1.0':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in '', 2 in 'CASL=1.0'; reversed: False
Glyph percent was not compatible:
  Masters: 'wght=800.0061', 'wght=1000.0':
    Contour 1 structures differ: 'wght=800.0061', 'wght=1000.0'
  Masters: 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0':
    Contour 1 structures differ: 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0'
    Contour 3 structures differ: 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0'
Glyph perthousand was not compatible:
  Masters: 'wght=800.0061', 'wght=1000.0':
    Contour 2 start point differs: 0 in 'wght=800.0061', 25 in 'wght=1000.0'; reversed: True
    Contour 4 start point differs: 0 in 'wght=800.0061', 25 in 'wght=1000.0'; reversed: True
    Contour 6 start point differs: 0 in 'wght=800.0061', 25 in 'wght=1000.0'; reversed: True
  Masters: 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0':
    Contour 2 start point differs: 0 in 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 25 in 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0'; reversed: True
    Contour 4 start point differs: 0 in 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 25 in 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0'; reversed: True
    Contour 6 start point differs: 0 in 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 25 in 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0'; reversed: True
Glyph uni031B was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'CASL=1.0':
    Contour 0 start point differs: 0 in '', 42 in 'CASL=1.0'; reversed: False

This report was generated using the fonttools varLib.interpolatable tool. We understand that sometimes the tool generates false-positives. Particularly for more complicated font designs. If you did not find this report useful, please apologize and ignore & close it.

To give feedback about this report, please file an issue or open a discussion at fonttools.

Activity

  1. arrowtype commented on Nov 23, 2023

    @arrowtype
    arrowtype
    on Nov 23, 2023
    Owner

    Hey Behdad, this is a super cool report! At least in the PDF visuals, the suggested fixes all appear to be worse than the midway interpolations. But, Recursive is definitely a complex designspace with some unusual interpolations, so it's understandable that an automated tool might misinterpret a few of parts of it.

    I'll close this issue, but please feel free to let me know if there's anything you think I might be missing.

    Thanks!

  2. arrowtype
    closed this as completedon Nov 23, 2023

  3. behdad commented on Nov 23, 2023

    @behdad
    behdad
    on Nov 23, 2023
    Author

    Yeah the tool cannot always propose good solution. But the first glyph seems to have kinks in that are probably unintended.

  4. arrowtype commented on Nov 23, 2023

    @arrowtype
    arrowtype
    on Nov 23, 2023
    Owner

    Oh, upon second look, you are correct! Thanks for pointing that out.

  5. arrowtype
    reopened this on Nov 23, 2023

  6. behdad commented on Nov 25, 2023

    @behdad
    behdad
    on Nov 25, 2023
    Author

    Hi again,

    I'm implementing a kink-detector. It's still far from complete. But I thought I get your feedback on it.

    out.pdf

  7. behdad commented on Nov 25, 2023

    @behdad
    behdad
    on Nov 25, 2023
    Author

    I think my question is, is this useful? Or those differences are small enough to let go? Basically, I'm trying to calibrate the tool.

  8. arrowtype commented on Nov 25, 2023

    @arrowtype
    arrowtype
    on Nov 25, 2023
    Owner

    Ooh, yes, this is amazing! Definitely a useful thing to find issues that were hard to locate, before. I especially want to try this out on Shantell Sans, next.

  9. arrowtype commented on Nov 25, 2023

    @arrowtype
    arrowtype
    on Nov 25, 2023
    Owner

    Some of the differences here are small enough to let go of, IMO. In particular, the /percent glyph is deliberately weird, and I don't see any super noticeable issues in the /one. But, seeing the issues in the the /Euro and /uni02C8 is very informative, and those are things I'd like to improve.

  10. behdad commented on Nov 25, 2023

    @behdad
    behdad
    on Nov 25, 2023
    Author

    Here's a much more aggressive version. I'm still tuning. :)

    out.pdf

  11. behdad commented on Nov 25, 2023

    @behdad
    behdad
    on Nov 25, 2023
    Author

    Retweaked. Shantell Sans. Catches one that doesn't matter.

    out.pdf

  12. arrowtype commented on Nov 25, 2023

    @arrowtype
    arrowtype
    on Nov 25, 2023
    Owner

    These are great! The more aggressive version is nice, imo. Does the command line version have an arg for threshold?

  13. behdad commented on Nov 25, 2023

    @behdad
    behdad
    on Nov 25, 2023
    Author

    These are great! The more aggressive version is nice, imo.

    Interesting. I thought it would be too busy. I'm still tweaking.

    Does the command line version have an arg for threshold?

    It will have, when I'm done with it.

  14. behdad commented on Nov 25, 2023

    @behdad
    behdad
    on Nov 25, 2023
    Author

    Does the command line version have an arg for threshold?

    It will have, when I'm done with it.

    For now I'm reusing the existing --tolerance. But I'll probably add a separate knob for just the kink checker as well.

  15. behdad commented on Nov 25, 2023

    @behdad
    behdad
    on Nov 25, 2023
    Author

    Here's what I'm happy with as default tolerance.

    out.pdf

  16. behdad commented on Nov 26, 2023

    @behdad
    behdad
    on Nov 26, 2023
    Author

    I settled on this for default, for now. There's --kinkiness parameter you can tweak. Might tweak the defaults again. Your thoughts?

    out.pdf

  17. behdad commented on Nov 26, 2023

    @behdad
    behdad
    on Nov 26, 2023
    Author

    That was way too much subtle details for the catalog. I'm trying this setting now.

    out.pdf

    You can still get the aggressive result if you want by setting --kinkiness to 1 or above. It defaults to .5 now.

  18. behdad commented on Nov 26, 2023

    @behdad
    behdad
    on Nov 26, 2023
    Author

    How about this as default?

    out.pdf

  19. behdad commented on Nov 26, 2023

    @behdad
    behdad
    on Nov 26, 2023
    Author

    I made the default conservative, as across the catalog it was overwhelming the reports...

  20. behdad commented on Nov 27, 2023

    @behdad
    behdad
    on Nov 27, 2023
    Author

    Here's what the current output looks like.
    out.pdf

  21. arrowtype commented on Dec 9, 2023

    @arrowtype
    arrowtype
    on Dec 9, 2023
    Owner

    Hey, this output is super helpful! Thanks again for the excellent testing tool. I’ll try to fix these kinks in the coming weeks, and make a new release early in the new year.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions