I think there is a general fear still of the Opentype format. Part of that fear is just change. Nobody likes change. But the other fear is, “will it work in my workflow?” A fair question considering not everyone uses OT savvy software.

Maybe I’m missing something, but several of the better book designers I know stick with Quark because they continue to rely on fonts with their own custom kerning tables.

I would think about where your customers are likely to be. If you are expecting most of your sales to come from wealthy nations, you can probably stick with Opentype. But if you expect to sell type in places where people have less to spend and are still getting by with old computers, old operating systems, and old software, also selling Type 1 seems worthwhile.

It also depends on the scripts and languages your typeface covers. I wouldn’t generate Type 1 fonts that go outside the Latin-1 encoding, simply because the Type 1 format only allows you to encode 256 characters and ISO_8859-1 (a.k.a. Latin-1) matches exactly the first two Unicode blocks (Basic Latin and Latin-1 Supplement).

“several of the better book designers I know stick with Quark because they continue to rely on fonts with their own custom kerning tables”

Which has what to do with the question? Unless they are using really old versions of QuarkXPress, *and* your font has extra typographic goodies that you’d put in bonus/supplemental fonts if it was Type 1.

Regards,

T

No offense, but I think you’ve said it. People who have older systems in place and are getting good results or need to set up clients to use a font when they don’t have the right applications might want a Type 1 option.

People who have older systems in place and are getting good results or need to set up clients to use a font when they don’t have the right applications might want a Type 1 option.

And then one day a client comes along who wants them to use a specific typeface, or a custom typeface, that is only available in OpenType and requires use of Unicode text and OpenType Layout, and suddenly the whole workflow becomes untenable. I’ve seen this recently in the particularly problematic case of a design agency using hack encoded Type 1 fonts for Hindi with proprietary InDesign plug-ins. Their entire workflow is based around this system, and it is a major obstacle to use of new typefaces. Needless to say, it is also an obstacle to text interchange, since the hack encoding is completely non-standard, recognised only by this plug-in, and not cross-platform compatible.

Type 1 has inertia.
Adobe can afford to not sell that format (in fact, it’s in their interests to migrate users to OpenType), but foundries would be foolish to turn their noses up at customers who want it.
So we make new fonts available in the legacy format, and people keep buying.

Type 1 has legs, economically.
OpenType has introduced a price differential into the market—Type 1 licences cost less than OpenType.
They may not be such good value for money, but if you don’t need all the bells and whistle...

> Adobe can afford to not sell that format

Actually, users can still license Type 1 fonts through Adobe’s Type Store; they’re just a little bit harder to find*. They’re still made available mainly for legacy reasons, i.e. if a user really needs those old versions for whatever reason, he can still get them.

*and some families don’t have Type 1 versions at all

> in fact, it’s in their interests to migrate users to OpenType

Adobe finished converting its whole library to OpenType in 2003, and stopped developing Type 1 fonts in 1999. The Type 1 format is almost 25 years old and is unsuitable for today’s typographic and technological needs. That said, migrating to OpenType should, in fact, be of *everyone’s* interest.

> Type 1 has