We have files that we have built in AI 2020 using the Raleway TrueTtype font. The client did not like the lower case "w" that crossed over in the middle so we replaced it from the glyphs with a more standard version. We have now released the files to the client & when they open the files in AI the "w" is reverting back to the original one they did not like. I don't know what version of AI they are using, & we sent them the same font that we used (we buy the licenses for them).
What could be causing the glyph to not work for them? Thanks!
Sorry to hear about your trouble. I would request you to share a few more details like:
We are here to help. We just need more information.
Thanks & Regards,
Unfortunately, I don’t have any of that info. The client was having the problem on their end & I don’t have access to their systems or even a point of contact. I was just hoping that maybe someone had experienced it & had a fix.
Thanks for replying. Would it be possible for you to share the download link of this document with us here or via DM? We can check this file on multiple systems and see if the issue is replicable or not.
I will be looking forward to your response.
I asked the account director if she was comfortable wih me sharing the file as this os for a very large CPG. She said for now we don't want to pursue the issue any further as we have agreed to no longer use glyphs on this client's work. Thanks for the follow-up!
They're not playing nice with each other, they probably still have the "wrong" installed.
And you should be using OTF.
We are at the mercy of what the designers use when they develop the art. I doubt the client had the wrong font loaded bc we are required to purchase the font for them & send it to them along with the license. Yes, even when it is a Cloud font. Don't get me started : / Still may be possible they had another version open that was conflicting with that one? Who knows.
The Raleway typeface has had a number of updates over the years. The clients need to make sure they're using the most current version of it. That version will have more glyphs and other features than the earliest versions.
Adobe Illustrator has been fully OpenType-aware going all the way back to the first Creative Suite version nearly 2 decades ago. I wonder if they're trying to open the artwork in a less sophisticated graphics program not fully OpenType aware or trying to open the artwork in an old, out of date application.
Is the artwork in question part of a logo or some other simple piece of graphics or part of a larger, more complicated document? If the Illustrator file just contains a logo I would convert the type to outlines as well as flatten/expand any Illustrator-dependent effects.
Unfortunately, the font is being used in flavor name & statement of identity copy that needs to be left live throughout the production process prior to printing as it sometimes has to be changed. I have no direct contact with the client so I have no way to ask what version of AI they are using or what OS they are on, etc. Their artwork center has been particularly difficult to work with & they seem to have very little knowledge of the capabilities of AI & PS. As an example, they don't understand Smart Object in PS. Don't want us to use them at all. But then they want us to make sure the art & images are editable so they can enlarge them or expand boundaries if needed. They keep trying to get us to dumb down the designs in order to accommodate their lack of knowledge so....... Not much I can do. But thank you for your response.
I think if they would just bother to visit the Google Fonts website and download the current build of Raleway from there the issues they're having with glyphs being substituted would disappear. Not only does the current version have more glyphs, but it also sports a variable version too. If the people you're working with are going to do graphics production work they should at least be willing to meet you halfway on this font issue. It's pretty basic stuff. They're going to be in for all sorts of problems in the future if they can't do their part to solve a technical issue like this.