Jump to content

JGD

Members
  • Content Count

    454
  • Joined

About JGD

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 05/30/1985

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9678-3692

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Lisbon, Portugal
  • Interests
    Typography, type design, modular geometric type design, grid systems, information design

Recent Profile Visitors

1,786 profile views
  1. I was reading the Microsoft docs page on that font and that seems to be the case. Even from a font managing standpoint, I am absolutely for abolishing separate, dedicated weight files. It could be interesting to have a “snap to weight” flag/checkbox, too. And the same goes to “snap to width” (on that subject why wouldn't you care for variable width? It would also simplify things on that department). Then again, that should become an OpenType and UX standard of sorts. IMHO, the only styles that could still be separated into their own files are the italics. Then again, it's not like there couldn't be a convention of sorts, a more restricted, glorified stylistic set of sorts, which could still allow for parametric changes to angle. That way, you could indeed have an instant upright italic, an oblique version, etc., all in the same file. Yeah, I got a bit lost there. I think as a type designer and font editor teacher, so this is just me creatively rambling at this point. In any case, Serif could and should be at the forefront of typographic innovation, instead of just focusing on illustration and classical DTP. I know it will take years for them to match Adobe's Single- and Multiline composers, RTL support, yadda yadda, but variable fonts are really just easy pickings, even if they're just based on a bunch of custom parameter sliders at this point. It's the standardization further down the road that really matters, and the only way for them to partake on that is to enter that market ASAP. Also, thank you for pointing me to that Microsoft font. I had absolutely no idea they were toying with variable fonts already. That makes me extremely hopeful for an eventual appearance of variable font support in Microsoft Office, and not just at the OS level. That would solve so many headaches, really…
  2. As I suspected, that was quick! It's good to know, and further confirms my theory on why Apple would rather use Affinity Photo as a demo for Rosetta 2 (which, mind you, feels a bit like cheating, because Affinity apps are lean enough to make them somewhat usable even under binary translation), rather than as a poster child for Universal 2. Adobe users are still stung by Quark having dragged their feet during the transition from Classic to then Mac OS X, which led them to switch to InDesign in the first place, and by Adobe, in turn, having dragged their feet during the transitions from Carbon to Cocoa, from PowerPC to Intel and from macOS to i[Pad]OS. Seeing how those users are still in the majority, it would be suicidal of Apple not to prioritize those apps and pretty much ensure they would be universal on day one… As for Serif apps, those were among the first desktop-first apps to appear on the iPad. It was patently obvious they would be the first to run natively on Apple Silicon macOS, even without advance warning from Apple. Adobe, on the other hand, had to be given early access to the DTK and likely extra help from Apple engineers. It's both sad and impressive to see the difference in treatment here…
  3. Yeah, you're probably right… Now that we're past the “obvious & vital features” stage, it makes sense they'd hold their cards closer to the chest. Still, one can dream, eh? I'm optimistic about both Affinity 2.x and variable fonts coming sooner rather than later though, whether the features contained therein are a complete surprise or not. And the whole Apple Silicon transition only set them back by a couple of weeks, which is also great news.
  4. Well, seeing how there's been some reactions meanwhile, I shall bump this thread again and add in my €0,02, mmkay? Fast forward to 2020 and I'm now entering a PhD in Design come October (the theme will, again, be centred around modular fonts, but this time on their usage in type design education), my buddies and I got, at the 10th ET (the conference I mentioned earlier), a sneak peek at Glyphs 3 given by none other than Rainer himself (with whom I've kept contact through the years), FontLab 7 is already out, CorelDraw is once again available for the Mac, Affinity apps still don't support variable fonts, and here we are. Guys, any ETA or thoughts on this feature? Maybe we'll see it on the Affinity 2.x roadmap?
  5. Thanks! As an additional point of data, we eventually got the Beta to import the entire score to a new document once again. Also, if you need me to save generate some logs for debugging, do let me know.
  6. So, yeah, I was trying to demo the workaround to my friend and it's not working (not on the GM version, at least, we will try the Beta now). He just authorised me to share it with you: Leonardo's Legacy - Full Score.pdf
  7. Thank you for the links! Well, let's hope they get around to solving those dependencies and recompiling their code soon. Everything points to that, and I'd say their pervasive use of platform-agnostic (if not completely ISA-agnostic) C, as well as Metal (which, I'm guessing, in the context of 2D apps shouldn't be so complex as to require much rewriting), should help on that… From all I've read here on the forums before, Serif always seemed to keep a good balance between keeping things abstracted enough from the hardware, while at the same time making use of native APIs and frameworks. I don't know how they manage it, and I still feel their apps could and should look and feel more native, but they're still leagues better than Adobe apps on that regard (well, if anything, they don't have to deal with decades-old spaghetti code ). I'm willing to bet that they'll transition their current three Mac apps way quicker than Adobe will (the absence of universal Illustrator and InDesign demos was notably conspicuous, for one). And when I say quicker, I say “way before the Big Sur GM even drops”, which might be earlier than the first Apple silicon Mac release. Of course, we won't know anything about that, as it'll likely be heavily protected by Apple's NDA, but we'd be naïve to think that Serif doesn't have an Apple DTK being shipped on their way or already set up on their offices somewhere. That's the only way they can promise to have it up and running on day one.
  8. What difference does it make whether it's a component or a product we're talking about? That's not the crux of the matter… Many of the examples I've mentioned were, in fact, bolted-on, third-party components, even if they were sold or otherwise distributed as products, and which became, one way – through acquisition – or another – through wholesale rip-off –, first-party ones. And the same happened with whole applications, and even entire GUI philosophies. I don't get why you're so hung up on the scale of the copying itself, as what really mattered to me in that post was the way it was done and the size of the parties involved themselves. The TL;DR of it is: it only irks me when the 800 lb. gorilla rips off the tiny indy dev; I couldn't care less when the 800 lb. gorilla rips off another 800 lb. gorilla. Especially if it's something obvious, essential and not especially creative like notifications or widgets (it's not like those are “aha!” innovations like, say, multi-touch as an entire interaction model), which ends up benefiting large numbers of users.
  9. You should've read what I wrote more attentively; it wasn't a typo and I indeed meant SBOD, i.e. Spinning Beachball Of Death, not BSOD (Blue Screen Of Death). I've been a Mac user since 2003, specifically on an iMac G4 which came with Jaguar pre-installed and Panther update CDs (yes, CDs, not a DVD) slipped in the box, and I can distinguish between a KP (Kernel Panic), a BSOD (a Windows-only thing which I also know all too well, having used PCs since 1992) and a SBOD just fine, thank you very much. In all fairness, people also call it by other names and I guess “beachballing” would've been more self-explanatory, but I did think that the “of death” part was more appropriate in this context as Publisher got indeed into a perpetual hang recoverable only by force-quitting it, i.e. the worst kind of “beachballing”. Anyway, back to the issue at hand: for that matter, I hadn't caused Affinity apps to irrecoverably SBOD (i.e. hang) this much – if at all – since I've started trying the first Designer betas, and something tells me that conversion processes such as this should at least trigger a small box with an indeterminate progress bar, IMHO; you see, even the first and last successful attempts were a bit long and made it seem like it hung, even though it didn't straight away. Oh, yes, eventually I did manage to find a workaround: • I created a new document, with facing pages activated and two pages; • I added the remaining pages directly from the original PDF file (it took a bit to process them but it worked); • Finally, I deleted the first two blank pages (maybe it would've worked with a single page, but I didn't want to risk having Publisher stronk out when rearranging the spreads, as that may have been the offending step of the process). Regardless of an upcoming fix, I'd suggest that you add the facing pages option in the PDF import dialog, as this – not specifically with music scores, but with multi-page PDFs in general – should be a very common use case. As a matter of fact, it may be a workable alternative to IDML import for simpler documents (or stuff created with different applications, such as Word, QuarkXPress, etc.), it's something that weirdly not even InDesign can do and that Illustrator is completely horrid at, and also something definitely not worth subscribing to Acrobat DC Pro just to get access to. Affinity Publisher might become an affordable and perpetually licensed de facto alternative for all those basic PDF editing apps for many, many people… Think of the possibilities! As for the score itself, my friend already uploaded the finished video to YouTube, so I'm guessing he won't mind me sharing the relevant files with you for testing, but I'm not assuming anything and will have to check with him first. Stay tuned!
  10. Guys, I don't know what's so incredibly wrong with this document… I'm trying other workarounds, such as “Add pages from file”. I'm even trying to add them in shorter bursts, 10 pages at a time. Not even the cover page, which only has two text boxes. Absolutely nothing works…
  11. Hi guys. I was helping a composer friend of mine converting a .PDF generated in Sibelius into image spreads so he could edit a score+MIDI video in FCPX, and while Publisher seemed to do a decent job of importing the file, when getting to the crucial step of converting the document from single to facing pages I just get the dreaded SBOD. It's 100% reproducible [Edit: Also reproducible on the Beta. As a workaround, I'll try creating a separate document with the right number of pages and copy them over or something]. I believe he'll be understandably weary of sharing the file with you, as it's an original, unpublished composition, but perhaps one of these days we could generate some test files with Sibelius for you to test with. You see, we just realised that Publisher may be extremely useful for these kinds of workflows. Neither Ai nor ID were suitable for this, and I'm guessing there's some script for Acrobat I could try but, honestly, Affinity is more affordable and powerful for his use cases anyway.
  12. Sure, that was never in contention. I'm just saying that “hackers gonna hack” and, if the demand is there and the returns justify it, they will cave in to the market pressure. When they did the switch to Intel, Windows compatibility was never their main goal (if at all, which I also think it wasn't, as they ditched the vintage BIOS spec but never adhered to UEFI when it did become the norm on the Wintel world) and, yet, since that compatibility was there ripe for the taking and the investment on drivers for such a lean line-up was negligible, they went ahead and created Boot Camp. And the rest is, as they say, history. Them coming up with a Boot Camp 2, on an ARM-dominated or at least ARM-infested PC world (to the point that universal Windows x86-64/ARM-64 binaries also become the norm, that is), wouldn't be totally farfetched. Their SoCs would still likely eat Qualcomm's for lunch and make Macs, more than ever, the best PCs around for running any OS, so it would be a win-win situation, if you ask me. Then again, there's the whole virtualization angle. Perhaps they have an ace up their sleeve with that one? Maybe some great new way of doing it that actually makes the overhead of macOS also negligible? The very fact that they emphasized virtualization so much on the WWDC keynote, and not on some random session, is a dead giveaway that they must have some grander plans for it in the future. With Apple, more often than not, you have to do a lot of “Kremlinology” and tea-leaf reading; it's usually what's left unsaid that is truly relevant. Surely they don't expect Linux to be the only alternative OS to ever run on Parallels/VMware/Virtual Box (by the way, there was no mention of macOS itself running on a VM, but it also damn well should, especially considering how Rosetta 2 will eventually be axed, just like Rosetta [1, the PowerPC variant] and Classic/Blue Box were before it)…
  13. Massive respect! I am aware NeXTSTEP was built with the entire ISA-agnostic philosophy from te get-go, to the point that there was actually an x86 version, am I right? As for macOS devolving into a souped-up iPadOS, I'm siding with @R C-R on this one. They actually seem to be making the whole “security level” thing more transparent and easy to toggle on a per-volume basis, which is just great. And they were pretty vocal about allowing one to install and run outdated, unsigned versions of macOS… To do a 180° on that would be mindbogglingly stupid, represent a massive breach of trust towards their loyal power users and be completely out of character especially after releasing the beast that is the new Mac Pro. I'm not buying that, and the ARM-based replacements to the Xeon-powered machines are actually the ones I'm more curious about; think Afterburner card, but on massive amounts of steroids. As a matter of fact, I'm going one step further in my speculation: I can even envision people hacking Windows ARM-64 (whenever that comes to pass and evolves out of OEM-only status) onto A-series Macs using custom boot loaders and Apple eventually caving in and reviving Boot Camp, in pretty much the same way they created it in the first place only after Windows x86 installations were hacked on top of a kludgy BIOS emulation thing on the very first Intel Macs. And even if that doesn't happen, we'll see at least Windows ARM hacked onto virtualisation software (legally or otherwise), mark my words.
  14. Firing it up on a DTK Mac Mini (my guess is it'll run just fine, as most of the code was already ported to iPadOS), about which they won't be able to talk because they'll be under a heavy NDA.
  15. Well, I see where you're coming from with that. But let's face it, not even System/Mac OS 1.0 was entirely original, it was a wholesale copy of Xerox's Star with a lick of Bill Atkinson, Andy Hertzfeld, Steve Capps, Susan Kare et al.'s paint on top of it. And Xerox Star was a platform which, in turn and mind you, probably wouldn't even exist – or at least definitely not in that particular form – if it wasn't for Douglas Engelbart's “mother of all demos”. As for more recent times… could you seriously live productively without Notification Centre on iOS/iPadOS? That's also an Android innovation right there. Resizing from all corners and sizes on macOS? A belated addition to then-called OS X, lifted wholesale from Windows. And the same goes for the current fullscreen and split screen implementation… As for Maps' features? Well, since Apple ditched Google as a default provider many years ago and, as Marques Brownlee keenly pointed out, still don't allow you to set a different mapping app as the default, they'd better copy them ASAP globally (I live in a small country in Europe where Apple has always lagged behind, and it kind of pisses me off that the world's biggest company still hasn't properly caught up with Google)… And the iPod? Was it the first pocket, mass storage-based music player? Was Apple Watch the first modern smartwatch? Nope, they were just the best at their game from day one. Time and time again you see Apple playing out that MO: occasionally they come up with an explosive innovation which quickly propagates across the entire industry (say, the PowerBook 100, which was one of the first such products on the market with the pointing device closer to the user and the keyboard farther, the PowerBook 500 and its seminal trackpad, multi-touch gestures on the 2004 PowerBook and iBook G4 trackpads, or the entire touchscreen phone and tablet paradigm… the latter of which, as you very well know, also originated and were demoed outside of Apple well in advance of their conversion into workable products: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89sz8ExZndc) or ballsy, pioneering move (ditching the floppy, serial, parallel and SCSI ports in one go, then the optical drive, then their own FireWire and shortly after USB-A and all other I/O), but they mostly copy others with a twist or a flair. Steve Jobs himself put it out on display, shamelessly, with his apocryphal quote “Good artists copy, great artists steal”: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/06/artists-steal/ I don't mind copying in principle. Everyone does it, and I stand by it even on creative fields like my own (remix culture, as defined by Lawrence Lessig, comes immediately to mind) and am deeply skeptical of the current climate of copyrighted *everything*. Heck, I work in type design, an area where we've been copying Roman artisans and Irish scribes for around 2000+ and 700+ years respectively. I'm fine with it, as long as a modicum of ethics is maintained in said copying – namely, by giving some form of credit and/or compensation – and some common advance of the human species is achieved – that should go without saying… If you're bringing nothing new to the table, you are indeed only taking advantage of others for immediate personal gain. I won't make any excuses for Apple when they weren't on the right side of history (can you say “Sherlocking”? Konfabulator? Growl?), but other than those few examples they did get better at it once they had the resources to outright acquire good ideas and properly compensate their originators whenever possible. For every of those bad moments, there are many more when they did things right (for instance, SoundJam MP, Coverflow, Beats, Workflow or Shazam come to mind). As for two behemoths (historically Microsoft and Apple, now mostly Google and Apple and sometimes Samsung and Apple) constantly copying one another? I couldn't care less, as long as end users collectively benefit from it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.