Optical Vs. Metric Kerning

>Especially bad with spaces before cap T and W.

I don't believe that's bad kerning as such; rather, it's what could truly be called "optical kerning", where the word space before letters such as W, T, and V is decreased to give an optically even look. You don't see it much in fonts these days (just as you don't see increased space before the heavier punctuation stops like colons, semicolons, etc), which is probably why it looks strange to many, but you can find reference to it in older typesetting manuals like Dowding's "Finer Points in the Spacing and Arrangement of Type".

>Can you give examples of these bad kerns?

Gill Sans is the worst. Especially bad with spaces before cap T and W. Try signing off World Vision on Weyerhauser Way in Federal Way, WA, with that!

We actually had a constantly updated kerning table for it at my old agency (you find a pair, you add it). When I moved to World Vision, where it was the corporate font, I couldn't believe they didn't use one. But they quickly moved to ID, and the (optically-kerned) rest is history.

>One thing to look forward to in CS4 is that GREP styles allows you to, in effect, set up custom kern pairs.

Ooh, cool. The CS4 upgrade calls to the geek in me. (Hello, medical references!)

One thing to look forward to in CS4 is that GREP styles allows you to, in effect, set up custom kern pairs.

Dave

I'd agree that "We'd" is too tight, but because I think the optical alternative is too loose and, because I haven't found a problem with other apostrophe kerns in Minion, I see this as an argument for a kerning editor, not optical tracking. In general, I find optical kerning sets Minion Pro regular too loose.

(I don't set French text, so I can't comment on that.)

>Can you give examples of these bad kerns?

Just about any combo in Minion Pro with the apostrophe -- "We'd" is particularly bad. With Metrics, especially French text looks cramped up to the point of unreadable.

>The built-in metrics of many fonts (even Adobe's!) are poor for many of the character pairs, especially numbers.

I haven't noticed such widespread problems. I would have thought that, if they were so poor, Adobe could just have used their kerning engine to kern their fonts. Can you give examples of these bad kerns?

>You do really need optical for big display type ... and for contiguous mixed fonts and sizes.

For really important display type and mixed fonts and the like, I do my own kerning.

I prefer optical even for text. On a good fast Mac, it really isn't slower. The built-in metrics of many fonts (even Adobe's!) are poor for many of the character pairs, especially numbers. Optical improves that.

Combined with good hyphenation and justifiction settings, optical gives you the most professional look, I think.

You do really need optical for big display type (where poor native character fit is more obvious) and for contiguous mixed fonts and sizes.

The exception is columns of numbers in tables. They align better if you use Metric or even None. ~A

I always use metrics. I prefer to use kerns that the font designer has looked at rather than metrics generated by an algorithm. Given that it's usually agreed that the best kerning is achieved manually, I'm always quite amazed at the number of people who prefer app-generated kerns. (I've wondered whether this was not due in part to the name; if it was called "automatic" or "machine" instead of "optical" kerning and "metrics" was called ""manual" or "human" kerning, would we see a difference in the numbers?)

>Unless you're working with a font that is designed to be used at specific sized, optical is definitely better for small and large point sizes.

I don't see why. What does point size have to do with it - if a letter combnation is kerned properly using metrics at 12pt, why would it suddenly not be kerned properly at 6pt or 72pt? Yes, you should set the tracking tighter for display type and looser for small type, but this is an overall setting and I don't see how it makes a difference. (I prefer to set tracking in my styles.)

For 7pt type, I would ideally choose a font with optical masters and I'd still use metrics kerning.

Unless you're working with a font that is designed to be used at specific sized, optical is definitely better for small and large point sizes.

So, for 7 points and below, I'd definitely use optical. It will add space to make the text more readable.

Dave

Thanks for all the input! VERY HEPFUL! It seems that overall - personal preference is the main thing. I know this may be subjective - but for smaller font sizes (under 7pt) would you guys prefer to use optical or metric kerning? Just out of curiosity?