Why can't I view my personal font libraries the same way I can view limitless file types in Bridge?

Forum|Forum|6 years ago
March 31, 2020
2 replies
1001 views

Surely allowing users to view font files within Bridge that are saved on their hard drives will not result in the world ending suddenly.. Will it?
I realise that we have a handy resource available in Adobe Fonts, but it is a very limited resource and with the world's designers also using the same resource things quickly begin fitting into a predictable mould. Being a designer for over twenty years I have an exstensive font library and whilst I'm not an idiot, I dont expect to be able to control the usage and activation of these fonts which could possibly threaten Adobe's Font service, it would be nice to be simply able to view them in Bridge as I would any other type of file. Yet it seems that the decision made by Adobe was to take a course of action in the development of their product to specifically restrict its ability to view font related files that people may have saved on their computers.

Surely Adobe has a big enough slice of the pie without having to control our usage of our own personal data and files?
Please tell me that I have overlooked something in the set up of Bridge for all these years (not that something so basic should ever be hidden in any set up menu) and I will happily eat my fill of some ripe humble pie.

This topic has been closed for replies.

L

Lumigraphics

Legend

Both Windows and Mac have built-in font viewing. There is no need to add it in Bridge.

gary_sc

Community Expert

Do not know about the PC font viewer but the Mac font viewer cannot see any Adobe (sic) Typekit fonts.

In fact, if you want to know what Adobe fonts you do have installed, it has to be done online.

gary_sc

Community Expert

Hi Anothermattryan,

No, it's not at all unreasonable. In fact, as long as Bridge has been around (2003) and as long as type has been accessible from on-line (2009) people have been asking the same question.

However, this is not the best place for asking for this. I am directing you to Adobe Uservoice. PM do not look in here very often but they are supposed to look in Uservoice. Hopefully now is the time, but I must warn you, do not hold your breath. I'm not trying to be negative, just looking at history.

https://adobebridge.uservoice.com

ANOTHERMATTRYANAuthor

Participating Frequently

You are right, it's not unreasonable. Considering the scale of Adobe price rate increases for subscriptions being quite outrageous, then yes it should view fonts. Considering how many applications must be subscribed to in the Adobe Creative Cloud, when lets face it, data would be quick to illustrate that probably over 50% of designers would only be using around 6 or 7 programs and the suite includes around 25. Why cant Adobe actually be the 'Bigger Player' here and provide a fair platform where users of all experiences, professionals, and fields, could actually choose their own personal combination of products to form a suite that each carry a component price being part of the overall per monthly rate? Its refusing to look at what users are wanting or needing because of other business agendas that have left Adobe in the position where a great number of subscribers only continue to use Adobe because alternatives continue to be exterminated and removed from the market by Adobe- strengthening the monopoly.
The thing is Adobe is unchallenged, and they could choose to even be nice about it too. Some people want to be cutting edge, the live for Beta time wasting etc etc and there are some people that just want to do their design and at an industry recogised or established level and thats it. Yet you force all this other unnecessary junk down their throats and charege them the earth for it. A sad fact indeed is that a lot of these programs werent still born, instead we all continued to pay for conception through to their birthlaunch and subsequent digital euthenasia.

Really, how do you sit at the top of the creative industry, your perch granting you unrivalled visibility, and yet you still have a "Photographers option" that includes the staples: Photoshop and Lightrom and then light express mobile device versions of the two? Seriously there isnt a photographer out there with an ounce of professional respect that would be using light or express apps on their mobile phones for their post production needs. Oh and while you are there why not build another photo sharing platform "Photoshop Camera" because the last time I looked the earth needed another photo sharing app to be thrown on the pile with all the others from IG to 500pix, like it did a hole in its head! This same disease has mutated throughout each of the Adobe dev lines with the same peculiar symptoms occuring only moments before death in each example. A feeble attempt is made to grasp that idea that they too must control their own social network channel, yeah of course evryone flocked to it...it was a great idea!
Seems that the majority of the extra subscription revenue ultimately feeds the developer entertainment channel.

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded