Your best chance is asking the authors themselves: http://www.omnibus-type.com/

Which versions of Photoshop and Illustrator are you using?

Maybe buy Univers Narrow eh?

hhp

Eh, No budget for Univers Narrow.

Using CS4.

How much do you spend on your cellphone bill? (Monthly...)

hhp

I've asked the designers to take a look. Thanks! :)

Hopefully they'll fix it quickly (and hopefully other problems won't pop up). In the meantime: individual weights of Univers are as low as $26. Since it's much less likely to cause technical headaches than a freebie it wouldn't be a waste. Unlike the lion's share of your cellphone bill, or your next dinner out.

Let's not confuse frugality (which I'm a huge fan of) with opportunistic penny-pinching.

hhp

Hi, Spirelli!
Please write us to omnibus.type@gmail.com
We will answer all your questions.
Greetings :-)

Pablo Cosgaya
Omnibus-Type Team

Could you post a screenshot or even a screencast video to youtube?

Hey Mr. Papazian (hrant), STOP berating me!!! Do you really think you know anything about my phone bill and eating habits? As you're asking (although I'm unsure how relevant this information really is), my monthly mobile phone bill is roughly GBP 6 (£5 subscription + about £1 for any non-inlusive calls), so you could say just under USD 10.

If it was possible I'd give you the client's details, for you to take up the issue of what font to use on their website with them directly. They've asked for something 'similar' to Univers Condensed Bold and don't want to pay for any extras, and that's it.

Your rants don't contribute much to the issue. Are you on sales commission or frustrated by low sales at the Microfoundry? The designers might be even grateful to have issues pointed out –– maybe?

I've just sent an email with a screen shot and further details to omnibustype@gmail.com. Is this enough, or should I get something to you also, abattis?

Using CS4

I have just moved to CS6 and so I do not know how representative it will be. The fonts show up in the font menu but separated, the bold, bold italic and regular weights/styles appearing under "Archivo Narrow" and the italic appearing separately as "ArchivoNarrow-Italic".

Looking at the font files this appears to be the result of the naming conventions for the OT Family Name (TTX: nameID="16") field, which varies as follows for the four weights/styles:

Regular = Archivo Narrow
Italic = Archivo Narrow Italic
Bold = Archivo Narrow
Bold Italic = (none)

It should be a simple matter of updating the naming metadata to fix the above and have them all appear together in the font menu but if you are experiencing an issue with missing characters I can replicate the problem or see what might be causing it.

HI Karl, Here's Illustrator's Glyph window. Although all the glyphs seem to be present, they're all in the wrong order, resulting in just the wrong characters coming up as you type.

Same happens in Photoshop, but not InDesign (all CS4).

I get the same display but typing is fine, the expected characters come out. Perhaps something in the handling that differs between CS4 and CS6?

I could not identify any encoding issues within FontLab and DTL OTMaster only turned up issues relating to the metrics, which should not cause the problem you are encountering. Could you give an example of cause and effect, as in a character you type and the character that is displayed?

Wow, thank you for your effort, Karl. Here an example:

Glyph window comparison

Just to confirm, did you obtain the fonts through the Google Web Fonts site or from somewhere else?

An this seems to be the version info(?): Archivo Narrow Bold: 2012 Archivo Narrow Bold 1.002; ttfautohint (v0.8); ttfautohint (v0.8)

Yes, I've got them from GWF on Friday.

The left screenshot shows Archivo Narrow with its glyphs sorted by Glyph Index, not by Unicode (which ought to have been the only setting for Illustrator).

I find something strange in v1.002, quite possible related, or the immediate cause. The cmap table, determining the mapping between Unicode and font glyphs, seems correct for Platform 0 (Unicode) and Platform 3 (Windows). A snippet:

U+003E = greater U+003F = question U+0040 = at U+0041 = A
U+0042 = B U+0043 = C U+0044 = D U+0045 = E
U+0046 = F U+0047 = G U+0048 = H U+0049 = I

However, for Platform 1 (Macintosh encoding), I see this:

U+0005 = B U+0006 = C U+0007 = D U+0008 = E
U+0009 = F U+000A = G U+000B = H U+000C = I
U+000D = J U+000E = K U+000F = L U+0010 = M

As you can see, totally the wrong Unicodes. Most surprising of this is that Illustrator CS4 prefers a Macintosh encoding, even on a Windows system :^)

This problem cannot be fixed by a font user, it's up to the designer to repair it.

They've asked for something 'similar' to Univers Condensed Bold and don't want to pay for any extras, and that's it.

Let me point out that now it’s you who’s paying for the extras. You might have been better off just buying a license for Univers Condensed Bold Web. Or, to adapt a popular free software quote: ‘Free fonts are only cheaper if your time is worth nothing’.

Thanks for pointing, Jens. So what?

1) I'm generally not paying anything out of my own pocket that a client should pay.

2) Asking for some quick advice online (my initial post) can be very valuable and time saving – sometimes, so hence I tried.

3) I don't mind to contribute a little to some community efforts (all my other posts in this thread)

Meanwhile I've done my visuals with Univers which I have on my computer, and will let the client know that the online version will look 'similar'. As you see from the face that I've replied, I'm not pressed for time...

Muj, your cellphone bill is unusually low (which I'm sure you realize). Good for you!

Your rants don't contribute much to the issue.

I disagree. You might have no idea how much advantage people take of the "font scene" just to save a few bucks. Like on Typophile we get so many requests for a font identification that's clearly meant to help track down a pirated copy... This isn't that kind of site - quite the contrary. Unlike cellphone service and food for example, fonts are easy to be a cheapskate on. BTW, I wouldn't say I'm "frustrated" (especially since I'm not big on the retail market) it's more a matter of defending something I value, which is not a useless endeavor.

And Jens is right: you're effectively paying more now (time is money) to fix a problem you could have avoided by spending a modest amount of money in advance (even if your client refuses to pay for it). Does Omnibus Type appreciate the free testing you're doing for them? Of course. But your client isn't paying for that either!

Your client is quite probably a cheapskate. I certainly appreciate that saying "no" to a client is tricky business. But don't blame people like me for pointing out that you've placed yourself in an unenviable situation.

Asking for some quick advice online (my initial post) can be very valuable

Indeed. But don't stop at listening only to technical advice.

hhp

Theunis: Thanks for your input.
Spirelli: We are working to fix the problem. Once we have the solution, I will notify you.
Thank you all for your time.

Pablo Cosgaya
Omnibus-Type Team

It takes three months to fix a cmap? Or did they just forget to come back and post here?

It takes three months to fix a cmap? Or did they just forget to come back and post here?

AFAIK the font fax fixed a few days after the problem was reported.

Cool.