Changing type 1 fonts to Opentype

[Gunnel1]

I have activated fonts on CC for the ones in my documents that are Type 1.  How do I change the Type 1's, it does not seem to be done autmatically since a listing from the PDF shows that that they are still Type 1.

[Peter Spier · Accepted solution]

If you mean you now have both T1 and OTF versions of the font and want to use the OTF version, go to Type > Find Font and change them there.

Acrobat will continu to show postscript flavored OTF fonts as Type 1 in the font properties, butif the font name is correct (presumably Std or Pro), the the correct font is being used.

[Gunnel1]

Yes, I meant that. But it seems that when I activated CC fonts, the Type 1 ones disappeared from the Find Font dialog.   I assume this means that the occurences of Type 1's were replaced automatically?

[Peter Spier]

Fonts are never replaced automatically in InDesign (unlike some other apps which will make substitutions without even telling you).

[Test Screen Name · Accepted solution]

Fonts are often converted to type 1 when a PDF is made. This is normal and will still work. You CANNOT use a PDF to find whether your installed fonts are type 1...

[Gunnel1]

Thanks much, I didn't know that.  One wonders: if Type 1 is so old and rusty, why does PDF still conert to them (secretly 🙂  )

[Peter Spier]

PDF is now an international standard, not just an Adobe proprietary format, so there are lots of legacy requirements, and the OTF format is really, as I understand things, a wrapper for either underlying True-Type or Type1 format fonts.

[Brad @ Roaring Mouse]

Type 1 in itself is not obsolete; it is still the way a font outline is defined in Postscript fonts, and in some ways is still vastly better than TrueType outines (although this is like a VHS vs Beta argument). What HAS changed is how fonts are packaged. The problem with traditional Type 1 fonts in the past is that they usually required two files; the screen fonts and the printer fonts, and this goes back to the obsolete file system of the Macs that hasn't been used since OSX came out. Similarly, there were two (and sometimes 3) file pieces that needed to be installed in a Windows system. OTF was developed as a way to roll all the pieces into one simple file for modern systems. TrueType fonts were already a one-file font system, but the OTF standard has made them easiee to deal with as well.

The PDF will still list OTF Postscript-flavoured fonts as Type 1 because they ARE type 1 outlines, although compressed in the CFF Type2 format in the actuall OTF file, but essentially uncompressed  when embedded... (they aren't doing any sort of secret conversion) 

[Bevi Chagnon - PubCom.com]

And OTF fonts also use the Unicode font encoding system, which means that various digital technologies can read and correctly interpret the file.  Old PostScript and TrueType fonts reused the 256 ASCII character codepoints for whatever symbol they wanted. Look at old PostScript Zapf Dingbats or Symbol fonts, for example.

"cat" spelled with old ASCII codepoints with a regular text font is 099, 097, and 0116. But those same codepoints in a Zapf Dingbats ASCII font are ❃, ❊, ▼  and in the Symbols TrueType ASCII font are β, ∝, τ.

So when your file is read/processed by a modern browser, mobile device, screen reader/text to speech software, or search engine, lord only knows how "cat" will be interpreted (or even rendered in this online forum!).  Unicode has allocated each glyph to its own unique codepoint. I don't know of anyone who needs all 64,000 glyphs/codepoints, but you do want to use the right ones for your work. You want "cat" to be U+0064  U+0061 U+0074 so that everyone will know you're talking about a cat, not a dog.

BTW, Unicode has standardized the codepoints for musical symbols and chess symbols, as well as Braille, Majong tiles, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and emojis. I've known several monks and I think they would have been overjoyed to see all of this in Unicode, especially the colorful emojis. https://www.unicode.org/charts/

An OTF font can be installed on either Mac or Windows systems. Old PostScript and Truetype required dedicated fonts files for each OS. Royal PITA when trying to work across the platforms.

[biowizard]

Bevi, being picky (and correct!) - ASCII is a 7-bit encoding, that only encodes 128 code points (including 0, NUL, used in most software compilers to denote end-of-string). And the first 128 code points of UNICODE are mapped in exactly the same way. So apart from using 16-bit (or 32-bit, or UTF-8 encoded) numbers, first first 128 code points in UNICODE are, literally, ASCII, and defined as such.

It's when the 8th bit is added (bringing the code point count up to 256) that things get messy: IBM's usage on the original IBM PC was not taken on by ANSI, whose alternate encoding, Microsoft chose to use for Windows. Microsoft called the IBM encoding of code points 0x80-0xff the "OEM" character set, and even built functions into Windows to convert strings between the "OEM" and "ANSI" spellings.

To further confuse matters, both IBM and Microsoft then included "Code Pages", that mapped alternative glyphs to these code points, to support a wider range of Western languages. I won't even go into JIS and the other encoding schemes that began to appear in Japan, Taiwan, etc. Yes, it was a hearty mess.

Unicode is so much better in almost all respects. But don't blame ASCII - that was - and still IS - the perfect encoding for text files in the English language.

[Paul Kearns]

I have lots of old rohects clients reuse - and now I'll have to redo them all becuase of this change - and hope the hours spent kerning and leading  for specific projects "just work"  Something is wrong here....

[rob day]

You might look at Font Lab’s TransType

https://community.adobe.com/t5/indesign-discussions/ende-der-unterst%C3%BCtzung-f%C3%BCr-ps-type-1-f...

[Bevi Chagnon - PubCom.com]

@rob day 

Do you know how well Font Lab converts to Unicode?

We've heard of some problems with mapping to the correct Unicode codepoint for some glyphs. Of course, this affects accessibility and all machine reading of the text.

And are the original PS font's kerning pairs inherited into the new OpenType version?

[rob day]

I’ve only done limited testing, but they offer a demo. In the testing I did do, the font’s version number was maintained, so old documents automatically recognized the font.

[Bevi Chagnon - PubCom.com]

I have lots of old rohects clients reuse - and now I'll have to redo them all becuase of this change - and hope the hours spent kerning and leading  for specific projects "just work"  Something is wrong here....

By @Paul Kearns

You're absolutely right, something is wrong!

In a few weeks, it will be the 22nd anniversary of the computer world's switch to Unicode/OpenType fonts. The entire computer world — not just Adobe — switched to OpenType in 2000.

Sorry you missed the memo about this!

All of us designers should have migrated our clients to OpenType over the past two decades. All of Adobe's pre-2000 PS fonts were converted to OTF versions, so the swapping is easy and fast. Just activate the OTF versions of your Adobe fonts through Creative Cloud, and use Find Font to swap them out in your file. (Note, it's best to deactivate the old PS/TT versions before you swap in the new OTFs. Fewer font problems.) Leading, sizes, kerning, tracking, etc. should all be retained. There's no doom and gloom.

And by now, we should have thoroughly advised our clients, colleagues, and staff about switching exclusively to OpenType in order to be compatible with newer communication technologies...like the web!

There are tremendous benefits to OpenType versus old PostScript/Type 1 and old conventional TrueType fonts. Here are a few:
 

1. Updated technology.
   I don't believe Adobe has updated any of its PostScript fonts since the late 1990s when it agreed to migrate its entire library to OpenType. So any Adobe PS font used today isn't going to have the latest kerning pairs and other typesetting controls to give the best typographical appearance.
    
2. More glyphs on a single font.
   The original ASCII character system had a maximum of 224 useful glyphs on a single font that included the keys (caps and lowercase) on our keyboards, as well as a partial set of European/Latin languages. Clarification: WESTERN European languages, that is. And no African or CJK (Chinese Japanese Korean) or SE Asian languages or ME languages (Hebrew, Arabic, Farsi, etc.) either.  Unicode/OpenType fonts, on the other hand, can have any combination of the 64,000+ Unicode glyphs that cover the world's primary languages and dialects, as well as some aboriginal languages. The most commonly used fonts for English-speaking countries have 500-1,000 glyphs … so many more than those skimpy PS fonts. And Unicode is expanding to include millions of glyphs. See www.Unicode.org/charts
    
3. More STEM symbols.
   The original ASCII character set gave us a whopping 3 choices of true fractions: 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4. (Yeowza. I'm so-o-o-o impressed.)  Heaven help those designers who needed to typeset a cookbook listing 1/8 cup of sugar and 1/3 cocoa powder!  Or STEM publishers who needed to set wild fractions like 3/123 or formulas like the Diameter of a Circle = circumference / π (pi).  With OpenType fonts, I can set any formula, fraction, or STEM symbol I need.
    
   Look at what's available in just 3 fonts, Noto Symbols, Noto Symbols 2, and Noto Math: See the complete Noto Sans and Serif library at https://fonts.google.com/noto 
    
   You can safely delete your old TrueType and PS/Type 1 fonts for Symbols, Dingbats, Wingdings and Webdings. Their glyphs were all assigned to Unicode codepoints so one or more OpenType font will have the dingbat you need.
    
4. Alternate glyph designs.
   Decorative swashes, true small caps, ligatures...they're in OpenType fonts.
    
5. Cross-Platform compatibility.
   Oh please don't make me relive the days before OpenType, when we would import a word processing file from Windows and loose so many of the characters … blank spaces, tofu blocks, smiley faces, whatever … were substituted for the missing glyphs from old TrueType or PostScript fonts. OpenType fonts, on the other hand, can be installed on Macs and PCs. They use the same font file so there are no more missing glyphs.
    
6. Cross-Media compatability.
   Unicode/OpenType fonts are required for:
   • HTML  - Web
   • HTML - EPUB
   • Accessible PDF and other document formats (Word, PowerPoint, etc.)
   • Multi-media
   • Smartphone apps

As a designer, I can't live without OpenType/Unicode fonts. I DON'T want to go back to the pre-2000 days of glitchy fonts and lousy typesetting and the straightjacket of having only 224 glyphs on a font. I want all the cool stuff, too.

I want to create for all media, not just print.

And I want it accessible.

Welcome to the new millennium, 2000.

Er … I mean 2022!

[Paul Kearns]

Than you Ms Chagnon

I'll be enduring the perils of my  not paying attention! lol

Better get cracking before another 2 decades slip by!

Thanks again!

[natural_ninja157F]

0. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The old project with the Type 1 font worked for the designer and clients' purposes. You chose a font that made the visual point you wanted, with the characters you needed.  If you needed any of the things the old Type 1 font couldn't do, you would have chosen a different font. Now suddenly you open something old and you have to go digging in your font directory and find out how to kludge the old font into the new format, or pick a new font, instead of just doing what you came to this file to do and get on with your life. It's a giant pain in the ass.

[BobLevine]

Suddenly? You've had years to prepare for this and you can still get around it for a while by using an older version of InDesign but at some point, and I suspect very soon, neither Microsoft nor Apple is going to give you any way to use those fonts.

[Stanley1674]

As a business owner who has invested thousands of dollars in Type 1 fonts, now deciding that I should pay again for the same designs is hard to justify. With thousands of projects set in Type 1 fonts, the work required to convert them to OTF is another unnecessary expense. While OTF has some technical advantages, the practical ones are hard to see for those of us who work in English and European languages. Adobe has maneuvered itself to a dominant position in publishing technology and this font switch is another example of ignoring customers for its own benefit. I'm glad I continue to use Quark XPress and ignore InDesign.

[rob day]

now deciding that I should pay again for the same designs is hard to justify.

There are two alternatives for InDesign users, either convert existing type 1 libraries:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/indesign-discussions/ende-der-unterst%C3%BCtzung-f%C3%BCr-ps-type-1-f...

Or, don’t upgrade InDesign past CC2022—are there new InDesign features that are essential? Not for me, but eventually the OSs will also abandon Type 1 fonts.

[Willi Adelberger]

That T1 will not be supported in the future was announced 1998 and realized now. You had enough time to move to modern technology. I doubt that Quark will support T1 as all OS will or have stopped t1 support.

[Dave Creamer of IDEAS]

Presumedly, it will be the newer versions of Adobe software that will stop recognizing T1 fonts. You could keep InDesign v16.x on your computer. You can use it as long as your OS runs it and the OS recognizes T1 fonts. (Turn off the remove old versions preference in the CC app.)

[Stanley1674]

Thank you for the thoughtful replies. There are really two issues here: The font conversion utilities mentioned will solve the technical issue. However, Adobe, Apple, and other companies force us to abandon useful tools for business rather than technical reasons. Not all "upgrades" benefit end users. Why demolish PostScript Type 1? Could it not continue to co-exist with OTF as it has done for years? Regardless of the technical advances, this change imposes significant costs on companies small and large.

[rob day]

I have a binder full of software utilities and upgrades on DVD that I paid significant money for, which I can no longer install on my current hardware and OS. Upgrades always have a cost/benefit choice and that’s never going to change. Most font vendors stopped selling Type 1 fonts 20 years ago.

[Test Screen Name]

The "why" is an interesting question. There seems to be a hint that both Microsoft and Apple will phase out support in future systems. Since Adobe apps rely on the system for installing the fonts, there's a problem to solve. Whether it's the right solution is open to debate.