How to adjust built-in kerning pairs

In most cases, IDCS does a great job of automatic kerning, but how do I adjust when a character pair is too tight or too loose? Is there a way to enter a revised value globally so that we don't have to look for and fix the problem on every document that uses this font?

Thanks.

There is a third-party plug-in, Cool Kerning from Knowbody, that does this.

<http://www.knowbody.dk/productbasement/index.asp?language=2&PBSelProd=I000001&PBSelMenu=Info>

However, this product isn't sold as a one-time price. You buy a one-year license. At the end of the year you have to repurchase the license.

It's a troubling way to sell the product.

That's BS, and not something that a user of ID should have to pay extra for. Kerning control is something that should be included in any typesetting application. Is Adobe planning to incorporate a fix of it's own? If not, this is enough of an issue for me to go back to Quark.

This is a user to user forum. Ranting at other users will get you
nowhere fast. If you take enough time to work with ID, you'll find less
of need for this than with Quark's very inferior typesetting.

That said, if you want it, pay for it. You'll still be way ahead of the
cost of Quark.

Bob

--- this is enough of an issue for me to go back to Quark. ---

You'd rather have a bunch of warts for the sake of curing one blemish? That's smart.

I'm ranting at Adobe, and I apologize if what I said was offensive. I did not intend it to be so. That being said, Robert, and Eric, you don't have the right to scold or insult me either. I've been a typographer for 33 years, and it wasn't fun to find out that I have to spend $99 I didn't plan on to fix this job, because some software writer didn't think kerning adjustment was important.

Well, do you go the Quark forums and yell and scream about the lack of
transparency? The lack of full support for PSD and AI files? The lack of
a decent table feature? Or how about the fact that it cost hundreds of
dollars more than InDesign?

If not, then I suggest you're being unfair.

Bob

Michelle,

A few points to consider.

How many kerning pairs are you talking about? If you download the application it works in a demo mode that allows you to set the kernings for up to 20 pairs. Would that be enough to get you through this job, and then you can go back to Quark.

Second, there is actually a reason why Adobe chose not to add kerning pairs in InDesign. This has to do with people who use the same typeface in their placed images from Illustrator or FreeHand or Photoshop or a graphing program.

Kerning pairs in the ID program would not carry over to the images in the placed graphics.

Adobe felt that it would be better if the designer made the kerning pair changes within the font itself using a font utility such at FontLab. Then the type would match across applications.

Having said that, I know that quite a few publishers in NYC have complained bitterly about this situation and they too are not happy about the extra cost of the kerning plug-in. I know that Adobe has heard these publisher's complaints for quite some time. So consider your rant as noted at Adobe-land.

Thanks, Sandee...that's a great suggestion and it WILL get me through this job. I do hope that Adobe listens to the complaints and takes action, because InDesign H&Js and full paragraph composer are clearly superior to Quark type.

Not everyone needs transparency or PSD and AI compatibility. I certainly don't, when I'm typesetting books. And if I have to license annual extensions such as this for kerning adjustment, then time, trouble, and cost have been unnecessarily added to my already full workdays.

I'd like to know when and by whom it was decided that pros in the business are no longer free to discuss the shortcoming of InDesign without being subjected to a tongue-lashing or outright being called an idiot for using Quark. At best, it shows a lack of courtesy, not to mention intelligence. Feedback from the trenches is how software improves.

My beef isn't with your desire to see a feature included. But to call
its absense in InDesign BS is IMO, selfish. Not everyone needs kerning
pairs, either. I certainly don't. That doesn't mean that your needs are
unimportant, but they can easily be filled with a plugin.

I'd like to see table styles added, but I'm using a plugin for that.
Others would like running heads. Sorry, you'll need a plugin. High end
imposition? Sorry, you'll need a plugin for that also. Barcodes? Again,
plugins. And if you think that's bad, third party developers are the
only thing that makes Quark even semi functional, IMO.

You got exactly what I predicted you'd get by your initial post. Ranting
at your fellow users is very counterproductive.

If you like to get your word directly to Adobe do it here:

http://www.adobe.com/support/feature.html

Bob

If you're going to come out shooting, expect someone to fire back. 'Nuff said.

Between the excellent kerning in Adobe's OpenType fonts--including proportionally spaced numbers--and the ability to change to Optical kerning when all else fails, I can't imagine needing a kerning table editor in Illustrator or InDesign. Quark, of course, is another story.

For those who always like Adobe's kerning without exception, or global adjustments like optical kerning, that's fine, Brian. But sometimes there's just a pair that annoys you. (For example, the setting of a letter and a certain punctuation mark.)

Now, you still can set a character style with the desired kerning and even name it after the relevant pair, then search for the pair and apply the style. But wouldn't it be nicer and just more straightforward if you just had a panel that would let you do it in one go? It's not an unheard of feature and it seems to be regularly asked for. (And the feature request list is a good place to do it, for sure, though hardly out of bounds for the present list.)

As for Sandee's point, I don't see why everyone who wants to change a kern pair should have to go through the hoop of using FontLab to fiddle with the insides of their fonts. Why not just those who are placing the images with text and worried about consistency? Moreover, even those people might elect to use a kern pair feature for the text and manually twiddle the cases where it occurs in the image, if they are relatively few. The only people who really need to alter their fonts are those where there was a fair amount of text in placed images. And it's just not clear to me why that should set the default.

Victor

I'm not against seeing this feature added, but wouldn't it be something of a double-edged sword? If you set up a kerning table it would apply to every instance of that pair. This may be desirable in a 36 point headline, but the same values applied to a 12 point text might not be so hot. It seems to me you'd still be tweaking things on a case-by-case basis unless the table allowed you to exclude instances above or below a certain point size. I'm not familiar with how Quark handled this- maybe that option was there?

> If you set up a kerning table it would apply to every instance of that pair.

That's the idea. For someone laying out a book, it's a nice feature. For
many designers, it's worthless.

Which I suppose is pretty much what I already said. We all have features
we'd like to see added.

Bob

It seems to me you'd still be tweaking things on a case-by-case basis
unless the table allowed you to exclude instances above or below a certain
point size. I'm not familiar with how Quark handled this- maybe that option
was there?




No, the option is not there for the kerning pairs. However, there is a Tracking Edit which does allow you to change the tracking at different values for different point sizes.

These features are not often used by most Quarkers, but there are quite a few interior book designers who feel lost without them.

The old Bedford Unix-based Real Time Composition System (RTCS) allowed for custom "sets" of kerning pairs, under which the user could define 3 point-size ranges with specific kerning definitions in each... One could also define custom definitions for type "expansion" and/or "contraction" to meet particular aesthtic demands, not unlike the old type designers who would draw three different designs for 3 size ranges also.

I don't think it selfish to request this type of feature at all. Call me old fashioned, but this is an important aspect of quality composition, quality which is misunderstood and underestimated, if not ignored, by many uninformed self-styled designers today. There are many posts on this forum from those who are intimately knowledgeable about current technologies. But the value of their comments is limited by the contributor's historical perspective and experience.

Those who downplay this feature request ought to avail themselves of the history of type and broaden their respective views of type and its effective usage.

Kudos to Michele and all like her out there. I thought I was the only one left.

BTW: This RTCS system predated Apple's GUI by nearly 15 years!

I don't think it's selfish to request any feature. But to call its
absence BS while dismissing other features IS selfish.

It comes off as thinking that only the features you use are important
and the others are meaningless.

Bob

Nobody minds the addition of useful and quality features. Or discussions about how they might be implemented. But throwing a tantrum and threatening to go back to Quark (boy that will really show us!) over something like that is going to provoke a response.

And if you didn't like a type's kerning pairs back in the old days what would you do? Get out a file and fit them tighter? Currently there is nothing to prevent you from doing a find & replace with a new character style. And if there are several pairs and you have need to do it quite often you should look into making a script.

There are so many things built into ID to help with beautiful, quality composition. And with each revision it gets better and better. Maybe in the future this will be incorporated, but it is hardly a deal breaker – especially when there are quite a few alternatives.

<Get out a file and fit them tighter?>

In the "old days", often used objectionable character pairs were redesigned and manufactured in character pairs by the hot-metal matrix manufacturers. They were called "logo's" or "logotypes" back then. Sound familiar? For the most part, only the common ligatures (fi, fl, ffl, ff, etc.), have survived, and even then are often incomplete or missing from many alphabets.

Was pretty hard using a file with precast character pairs--you either ran out of type or ran out of fingertips or both.

As for Sandee's point, I don't see why everyone who wants to change a
kern pair should have to go through the hoop of using FontLab to fiddle
with the insides of their fonts. Why not just those who are placing the
images with text and worried about consistency? Moreover, even those people
might elect to use a kern pair feature for the text and manually twiddle
the cases where it occurs in the image, if they are relatively few. The
only people who really need to alter their fonts are those where there
was a fair amount of text in placed images. And it's just not clear to
me why that should set the default.




I don't see why everyone complains so much about using a font editor. It's really not that hard, and you can rename the font with a hint to what kerning has been changed it that font and you're set to go. Even if ID had a kerning editor I would do it this way, so that I wouldn't have to do it on each document.

Even if ID had a kerning editor I would do it this way, so that I wouldn't
have to do it on each document.




I agree that editing the font is the most correct (or best practice), way.

But just to let you know, the Kerning Edit tables in XP, can be applied across documents.

It's a tough decision as to where the kerning edits should be made.

Adobe took a very high road when ID first came out by not putting kerning tables in ID.

But they didn't make that decision high-handedly. They honestly thought what they had decided was a good thing.

And from what I can tell, there are a lot of respected publishers and designers who really need the kerning edits in their page layout program. And I have actually met quite a few for whom this is a deal breaker. They have kept with Quark for this reason alone.

And, having said that, I know that Adobe is aware of this discussion.

On behalf of Adobe, I'll confirm that we are certainly aware of this discusssion and the generic desire for such a feature.

Although editing a font may be considered by some to be the "most correct" or "best" practice, in terms of reality, such edits can be a nightmare. Why? First of all, the generic font editing tools such as Fontlab and especially Fontographer are fairly destructive with fonts. They are font editors, not pair kerning editors. They require special skills to use them properly and to avoid destructive side effects. Secondly, an edited font introduces yet more variables into the workflow, especially if the "edited" font is saved with the same name as the original leading to the possibility that the edited font is not used where it is needed and/or gets used where it shouldn't be! And finally, three, there are many fonts that have EULAs (End User License Agreements) that legally prohibit such edits.

The question is what type of pair kerning override mechanism could or should be implemented and how that effects the entire workflow. Obviously, such overrides would be on a font by font basis for specified pairs of glyphs. Also obvious is that such overrides "follow" a document. What is not obvious is whether and/or how such overrides are set either globally per user, per system, and/or per organization and how such a hierarchy of overrides would work (additive, replace, priority?!?). And do such overrides work for all sizes, conditions, etc.?

And what happens vis-a-vis the pair kern override table in terms of the post-InDesign portion of the workflow? Does it somehow get propagated into PDF? That would possibly require an update to the PDF specification!

And do we integrate a common pair kerning override facility in Illustrator, Photoshop, and Acrobat as well as in InDesign?

So ... the answer is that Adobe has been very conservative about implementing such a feature because we obviously want to meet needs without causing more problems than the feature is worth. And once such a feature is implemented, it is virtually impossible to "redo" it some other way.

- Dov

First of all, the generic font editing tools such as Fontlab and especially
Fontographer are fairly destructive with fonts. They are font editors,
not pair kerning editors.




I don't know about the font editors you mentioned, but I use Font Creator and you don't have to dig into the character to create a kerning pair.

Secondly, an edited font introduces yet more variables into the workflow,
especially if the "edited" font is saved with the same name as the original
leading to the possibility that the edited font is not used where it is
needed and/or gets used where it shouldn't be!




I think it's pretty well known that you never save the font with the original name.

And finally, three, there are many fonts that have EULAs (End User License
Agreements) that legally prohibit such edits.




Obviously, in such cases they couldn't be edited.

And do we integrate a common pair kerning override facility in Illustrator,
Photoshop, and Acrobat as well as in InDesign?




Illustrator, Photoshop, and Acrobat are not typography programs so I don't see why you would need to implement them in the near future. I think it's pretty understandable if it first gets implemented into InDesign. Illustrator didn't even have paragraph style until recently.

(1) You'd be surprised how many people edit fonts and then save them back under the same font name (and well as file name). We hear about it all the time as a source of workflow nightmares!

(2) The issue isn't whether you "dig into the character" to create or edit a kerning pair, the question is whether the program in question simply edits the kerning table part of the font or whether it totally reads in the font, converts to an internal (possibly incompatible format), and then reconverts going back out to the original font format. If the software simply edits the kerning pair information and lets you save the font back out with a different family name, then the likelihood of damage is minimized. If not, thar' she blows!

(3) We beg to differ about the need for such a facility in Illustrator and Photoshop. Illustrator is used extensively for packaging and advertisements in which typographical issues are very important.

- Dov

Hmmm... (3) was very interesting. I've always thought of ID being the place for advertisements and Illustrator for making the artwork that is to be brought in to ID. I've never really noticed to many requests for typography in the Illustrator Feature Request Forum, but I'm sure you know better than me what's wanted and what's not in Illustrator.

Try to work with any slicks produced by manufacturers... they're simply awful because they've used AI to create the entire document.

I get many of these with the authors asking me to make "minor" corrections after I've imported into InDesign from an AI-originated PDF.

Hi, sorry to go off topic here, but I have a question.

When manually kerning, lots of letters within a specific line adjust themselves, even when set to metrics. Is there anyway to stop this? It seems to be the only issue with kerning in indesign, but I can't find any mention (let alone information) about a fix/plug-in to fix this problem?

I don't know how to expalain this, without visuals, sorry.

Hope you guys can understand what I'm trying to say.

Thanks
Mark

This is a very interesting discussion and I can see both sides of the argument. From my experience, however, the ability to globally change kerning pairs in programs such as QuarkXpress has always tended to be more trouble than it's worth.

If everyone was as competent as yourself, Michele, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, however, the vast majority of designers that I come across are often prone to tampering with things that they don't understand. I've seen first-hand the havoc that can be caused when a designer has arbitrarily adjusted kerning pairs in Quark. For this reason I'm pleased that InDesign has no such facility, just as I'm pleased that InDesign doesn't allow you to apply rogue bold, italic and outline attributes in the manner of Quark.

In your case, Michele, I feel that a little improvisation is called for. You obviously know what you're doing and if the kerning between a particular character and an exclamation mark really is a deal breaker for you, I'd suggest that you follow the advice of the other members here. A simple character style applied via a Find/Change would solve your problem and take only moments to do without the need for any additional plug-ins. And if it's multiple kerning pairs that you need to adjust in a particular font this could even be scripted for even easier implementation.

Stick with InDesign, Michele, it's really fantastic. And I speak from the standpoint of someone who used to be the biggest QuarkXpress evangelist you can find. The program's advantages vastly outweigh shortcoming such as this.

Ian: Are you kidding? I had a several hundred XPress kerning files before I switched to ID (which I did with its first release.) That was a wonderful function, although not the easiest to implement over time: the files had to be exported and imported and saved, etc. But it worked and it was great.

Here's my suggestion. Adobe's concept of the Creative suite has missed an important boat. ALL palettes should be global over the entire suite. (I know, a lot of reverse engineering or whateveryoucall it, but it's the way it should have been done.)

Using PDF as the basis for all the apps is only the first step. The next, done at the same time, should have been to make all styles, swatches, a kerning editor, etc. etc. work from their own individual modules, held in one central folder. Each app should use those modules, not have its own. Within the style modules, sets of styles, swatches or whatever is relevant should be held as such, to be invoked by choice per document. This would be very much like Libraries of Brushes or color Swatches, but it would be the default behavior for every palette that contains definable, saveable Styles. (It might not apply to palettes that give info or that describe a particular document, such as Pages or Layers, but it could be used to give similar functionality to different apps that use, say, Paths.)

Anyhow, it would have, or still could be, a way to have a "safe" kerning table editor. Of course it would be up to us users to remember to turn on the relevant kerning table. But global-over-the-Suite palettes would be totally cool and very useful. Thanks!

Bucky -- your talk about "global" Adobe palettes reminded me that every time an Adobe rep comes to give our company a preview of new features, I have to ask them when they're going to combine everything into one big application called "Adobe".

Hi Bucky

No, I'm not kidding.

I've Googled you and you obviously know what you're doing. This makes you a rare creature because most designers unfortunately do not. I train Quark and Indesign and most of the people I meet would struggle with a couple of Xpress kerning files, let alone hundreds. Some even struggle to spell their own name. :-)

Perhaps what would keep everybody happy would be to include this feature in InDesign but maybe password protect it. Or perhaps do what one of Kai's plug-ins used to do (I can't remember the name), which was to award stars to the user once he/she had completed a certain task. The functionality of the program was then increased, and new features became available.

What a good idea.

Hey, I never googled myself before. That was fun. Look at me all over the place begging for advice...Thank you Ian. I've been trying to figure this stuff out since before there were computers on which to do it. Some of the problems with the way things work come from these apps having been cobbled together over the last couple decades on what's now ancient technologies, some from trying to adapt hand tool metaphors to newer capabilities, and some from software engineers just not knowing the way things should work.

The present question is a case in point. When we worked by hand, there were lots of ways to kern type. It couldn't really be done with body copy in cold metal, but was relatively easy to do with 118 point wood block headlines. It was de rigeur with Letraset or filmset logotypes. (Who remembers Phil's Photo?) So, what metaphor to use in a computer program?

I designed and helped produce the first corporate brochure for Charlie Lankford's Penta System. It produced the most beautifully kerned type ever seen, back in 1992. (InDesign is ALMOST as good, but not quite.) I struggled with XPress for a decade trying to get its mix of Linotype-filmsetter-Linotronic metaphor based typesetting to equal Charlie's Penta. Hence all those kerning tables saved out to hundreds of text files, backed up on multiple floppy disks. God forbid I should lose one of those puppies; I have no idea how many weeks or even months of after hours work they represented.

Now InDesign does it for me, with an entirely computer based metaphor: no "hand" work involved. I'm a happy camper, believe me. But the composition isn't readily tweakable, and tweaking is, after all, what we like to do. That's why we're graphic designers. Yes, there should be a way to tweak kerning pairs. Some fonts just need it. Given ID's composition engine, not many and not much, thank god. If that would open a can of worms for "bad" designers I'd say that's their problem. Undoubtedly they'd find some other way to mess things up. Power to the people!

--- (Who remembers Phil's Photo?) ---

I've got a type book from Phil's... big blue 3-ring binder. Should I donate it to the Smithsonian?