I wonder how the new Adobe Web fonts compare to the earlier versions: Minion Web, Myriad Web, Caflisch Script Web, Mezz Web, Penumbra Serif Web, Giddyup Web…

based on what I have seen so far at the Typekit site, the hinting does not appear to be as good as in the Adobe Web fonts of old.

have a look @ screenshots in typekit, the hinting looks terrible, see Minion Pro 14 & 24 point for example in any browser in Windows 7, x-heights are not aligned, lowercase z is a mess

http://typekit.com/fonts/minion-pro

We've noticed the alignment zone issue with Minion. (Nobody's perfect!) The beauty of web fonts is that fixes can propagated everywhere very quickly. We'll see what we can do...

Note that the old "Web Type" fonts had the old basic Type 1 character set. These new fonts on Typekit are the "Pro" versions and support the same languages and scripts as their desktop counterparts.

• Note that the old "Web Type" fonts had the old basic Type 1 character set. These new fonts on Typekit are the "Pro" versions

Now that’s kind of confusing… The upgraded versions of Adobe’s ‘Web’ fonrs were also called ‘Pro’:

Oops, sorry. I was thinking of the original fonts.

Still, some Typekit fonts (Myriad, Minion) share the language and script coverage of their full "desktop" versions -- such as Greek and Cyrillic.

thanks for the reply Christopher. I was curious as I had read on Webmonkey the following comments

>>>Adobe is a little late to the party — the company is one of the last major font foundries to partner with Typekit — but Typekit President and co-founder Bryan Mason tells Webmonkey that the reason for the delay is a heavy attention to detail.

>>>“Adobe has been working on the hinting and screen rendering of these (and others to follow) for months,” says Mason, “[that] means a character-by-character, weight-by-weight review of each font family.”

I have noticed a few of the other fonts that have problems with hinting, Myriad Pro Bold for instance at text sizes, has filed in counters on lowercase e, so I just wondered if these types of issues were going to be addressed.

It is comforting to know that one who does not make, publish, employ or design fonts for the web, past, present, or likely future, has such a keeeean interest in the tiniest details of quality in every corner.;)

cheers!

David, glad I could be of comfort to you. I am of course, as you are, interested in the craft of onscreen typography. Looking forward now to glancing an eye over the ‘Reading Edge fonts’ :-)

Well,I'm sure you'll enjoy the re fonts (and please don't give them the old 1 eyed high sign just cause they look fantastic at 144dpi, really beat em), but this is in celebration of Adobes joining the web font flotilla, (who ray!).

The more people who try, the more who wonder "why?", and the more of the www c wg who try, the more who may understand, you can only take print fonts and formats so far into de endlessly complex chase of today's web, before you're kerfuked by some browser janitorial staff, or os that doesn't follow the ttf font spec, or some do gooding but clueless industry "helper" class.

cheers!

It's true we did put quite a lot of time into getting these web fonts ready -- but those who are asking "what took you so long?" can probably begin to appreciate that, in striking a balance between visual perfection and actually shipping a product, things slip through the cracks. We appreciate any feedback anyone wants to provide here or elsewhere.

I wrote: Still, some Typekit fonts (Myriad, Minion) share the language and script coverage of their full "desktop" versions -- such as Greek and Cyrillic.

I'm re-reading this and something got lost. (TypeCon sleep deprivation setting in, obviously.) I think what I was trying to say is that some fonts that shipped in the old Web Type package now have more coverage than they did before (such as with Myriad and Minion's Greek and Cyrillic).

@david berlow

As always, your criteria for deciding who is entitled to comment on how a font looks astounds me. I can only assume you tell your customers the same thing you told Duggan. Charming.

@christopher slye

Once WOFF/EOT support is ubiquitous among the major browsers will Adobe be selling WOFF/EOT files for those who want to host the fonts themselves?

See you later.
Rich

I have to hard-test Chaparral Pro, it was a great move to include it on this first batch!

Once WOFF/EOT support is ubiquitous among the major browsers will Adobe be selling WOFF/EOT files for those who want to host the fonts themselves?

I can't comment on future product plans, sorry.

@ Richard, sorry I offended though not surprised at how easily you are astounded.

A-a-and how are your hinting yorkies doing?

@ Chris, has Adobe ever sold fonts to users in the first place? ;)

Cheers!

I have to say that I thought Adobe's choices of which fonts to put in the first batch were dead on. Nicely done, old chums!

That being said, I have seen both the current crop and some of the future RE fonts from Font Bureau, and they look FABulous. It's a crazy lot of work, but it's a great way to go if a handful of seriously tuned web fonts are your objective.

Regards,

T