-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Upgrading design quality of Greek and Cyrillic (v4) #77
Comments
Roboto Classic's Greek and Cyrillic replacements are best provided as a subset of Flex's development, as Classic's design space is a subset of Flex. So, Flex's 14 pt extremes can be drawn, trimmed to Classic's space, move into Classic, and continued from there while Flex awaits Classics's completion, ready to move on to completion of Greek and Cyrillic's opsz axis. The other way, drawing the Classic extremes, doesn't help with Flex and doubles our costs. Then, we are to hint and compatibility test Roboto Classic Greek and Cyrillic? |
Dave, The design work (#1a), on this, has commenced. The production target is a merge with the existing Classic repo and process, leaving a script to build a new font including improved greek. The plan:
Waiting to bring more contributors in, on your approval. Thanks for you attention on this. |
from @dberlow
The repaired math is one level up.
Good question! :) Assigning to me, I guess this will not be decided until January |
I believe the Greek and Cyrillic typeface design quality of Roboto can subjectively be improved; the Greek more than the Cyrillic.
Schedule wise, I think this should happen and ship in this project repo before happening in https://github.com/TypeNetwork/Roboto-Flex, and therefore redrawing these ('Classic') masters should happen with the intent they be sized for 14 Point (actual/physical) such that they will smoothly become the Roboto Flex opsz-default masters.
Alternatively, the Roboto-Flex opsz-default masters can be imported from Classic, drawn, then exported back to Classic.
However, it seems to me that which way is a somewhat minor procedural issue. Any preferences?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: