JGD

Getting Variable Typefaces out, as promised, on next week's beta would be a great sign. Getting colour OpenType-SVG by the end of the v2 cycle or at the beginning of the v3 cycle, an added sign of consolidation on that front. Getting RTL support would be a game-changer market-wise and show that Canva is really serious about this.
I know I sound too hung-up on typography, and I'm obviously biased, but, as I've said before, eschewing entire markets and cultures based on technical constraints and… on having bet mostly on certain text/cultural-agnostic professional niches, such as digital illustration, that are pretty much well covered already by competitors (either by Canva itself, which is no longer a competitor, or by other products such as Pixelmator, Procreate, etc.) feels, in hindsight, a bit misguided but arguably still necessary in that earlier context. I didn't personally like it, but I understood that it was necessary for Serif's Affinity's continued survival. 🤷‍♂️
Yes, Serif was trying to secure a few of those niches as their cash cows (and indeed sort of succeeded at it) while they were, as it turns out, strapped for cash (or at least not rich enough to properly tackle Adobe). Conversely, with Canva's backing, they can now go head to head with the proverbial 80lb gorilla and start chipping away at their legacy feature set and keep introducing novel features, i.e. they can walk and chew gum for a change instead of dragging on with development.
Again, I know fully well of the Mythical Man-Month fallacy, but it did feel as if Serif was biting more than they could chew, and I do believe that instead of having a tiny team spreading itself thin over three apps on three platforms, having a separate typography team, a separate vector design team, a separate pixel manipulation team, while keeping them tightly-knit – also unlike whatever the hell is going on at Adobe, with their sprawling thousands-strong team and dizzyingly comprehensive family of apps – is not only feasible, but the best way of going about developing a suite like this.
That's the optimistic view, which I know many – including myself – don't 100% subscribe to, but we have to at least consider it as a possible scenario. Does it assuage our fears or preclude us from pursuing asset and portfolio migration plans? Sadly, no. Does it at least provide us with a glimmer of hope that we will not only end up in a better place than we are in right now as DTP suite customers, but also better than we were even back when Macromedia MX was still a thing (i.e. not eleven, but twenty years ago)? Maybe…
By the way, and while on the subject of Macromedia and competition with Adobe in general, Flash and Dreamweaver, which were the main drivers behind the infamous acquisition (remember GoLive? Yeah, me neither 😂), are now relics of the past, but way before all that went down they did try to go head-to-head with Adobe also on the digital photography editing side of things with their Macromedia xRes product, and failed miserably and promptly threw in the towel by their very first and last attempt, v3 (because, mind you, they didn't even develop it in-house, instead having acquired it from Fauve Software, the true pioneers of layers before even Adobe)… Serif, on the other hand, managed to not only stay afloat for all those years with their Plus suite and then produce something competitive with freaking Photoshop v16 (the 25th anniversary, CC 2015 edition, which had been, by then, an actual verb-worthy product for around two decades and a half, and now for around 35 years), and stuck to it; they have to be commended for that.

The reason why you notice lots of posts in these forums mentioning Adobe products is… the fact that the 80lb gorilla snuffed out most of the competition (more on it later), which means there's not much in the way of choice. Yes, I know, there is F/OSS, but its technical limitations and sometimes subpar UX (and that is a hill I'm going to die and rot on, sorry… I've now studied enough UX to find and explain faults even in the relatively user-friendly offerings by Serif and those by Adobe, and I completely understand why F/OSS in the creative industries still hasn't taken off, save for Blender and other notable exceptions) pretty much push people either into those nice, prosumer offerings on the Mac App Store, or to Adobe subscriptions, especially if they've worked with the latter in school (as is so often the case, hence Canva's push into that market).
People don't assume anything; Serif's swagger, and straight up copying of the former Adobe Creative Suite Design Standard product matrix (minus the professional PDF editor, sadly), and now the new and aforementioned post-Canva acquisition free licensing for education markets, solidify that position. It's not a perception, it's a fact.
And let's be fair, Affinity gets users maybe 90% of the way there, but it's those 10% of functionality that it doesn't yet cover, that make Adobe a true “jack of all trades”, which make all the difference. Many of the people you see here either need those extra 10% or anticipate they or their students (as is my case) may need them.
About the only thing most agree(d) on (and I say agreed, because we'll soon see an influx of Canva users who may be very content with their subscriptions) was that they wanted to own their own software, full stop. Again, there are very practical reasons for that, it's not just basic daily economics or a matter of principle (which it also is, of course).
While I agree with you on the market being big enough for everyone, there was ZERO competition against the former “Adobe Creative Suite Design Standard” suite/combo as a whole… But there was, and still is, proper competition when it comes to each of its individual components, albeit less integrated. One could feasibly purchase a perpetual Corel Draw Graphics Suite license, plonk down some extra on one for QuarkXPress, and boom, there you have it, a fully professional pipeline, with no subscriptions. A very expensive and less integrated one, for sure, but a very capable one nonetheless. And, indeed, analogous of what we used in the pre-Creative suite days… I was personally trained in Photoshop, Freehand *and* QuarkXPress, and that was the combo I used for the first two years of my bachelor, only to jump ship to Illustrator – which I still don't enjoy using as much as I did using Freehand, to this day – because of the infamous Macromedia acquisition and to InDesign because, yeah, truth be told, it was always miles ahead of Quark in terms of not just platform support – Quark really shot themselves on the foot with their belated transition to what was then called Mac OS X, oof – but also on UX and features.
Did we get greedy with the advent of Affinity…? Perhaps. But you have to appreciate that it's highly frustrating to see it get all the way to 90% there and then… just remain indefinitely “meh” and effectively incomplete for a lot of users, because the powers-that-be had to pay the bills and realised the only way to do so was to invest in new, sexy features for illustrators (which, as I've said before, are well covered by other tools) rather than tick all the unsexy boxes for classic vector design and DTP. Hence all the incessant comparisons! Of course, Adobe is also catering to those digital-first or even digital-only illustrators, even in Illustrator (ha! It's finally rising up to its name), but that's the thing: there are other tools besides Illustrator and Affinity Designer that also do, and likely do an even better job than either, because they're not jacks-of-all-trades.
As for DTP and print production workflows… the only integrated packages now are Adobe's and Serif's, period. They are, effectively, rivals (and now, with Canva's backing, if Affinity is to thrive as a product under its wing, even more so), and while I can also see code and UX as a quasi-artistic endeavour and as much as I appreciate your “Kumbaya” stance regarding software, at the end of the day they are tools (for artists, yes), not artistic creations in and of themselves. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and do I have to remind you that Adobe eats Serif-sized companies for breakfast? And that whenever Adobe does that and just discontinues products, peoples' livelihoods are affected? And that the same happening at the hands of Canva would make zero difference in that outcome?

Bingo! Even across different countries (hence me mentioning pt-PT vs. pt-BR) technical jargon can vary, and you'd need at least one expert consultant and one translator (or, ideally, someone who can do both) for each language…
Regarding automatic translation, I've seen such stupidity on apps distributed by large companies that I suspect many didn't get the memo yet, but I hope they will after getting enough user feedback. Just yesterday I fired a string of five or six support tickets to Leroy Merlin (it's like a big French hardware store chain with locations across all of Europe), because their Enki home automation control app is full of bugs, and one of the last ones, pertaining to their deplorable translation efforts (complete with entire paragraphs in English on the very support ticket submission webform), was focused on this pearl: the usage of the Portuguese word “Perto”, which means “close” as in “nearby”, for the “Close” button, instead of the correct and standard verb “Fechar” in the infinitive. Interestingly, the app was, I suspect, done by French coders, but they must've standardised in English, because “Fermer”, the unambiguous conjugation of the same verb in French, would never translate into “Perto”… But that just goes to show how you just can't rely exclusive in “AI” (it's not true AGI, it's just LLMs, and LLMs are just mass plagiarising machines with some PR and advertising lipstick on them).

Fair enough. I do expect the discussion to refocus on Variable Font support proper, when it becomes available/exposed in the UI/whatever, because at this point, it's mostly a teaser.

Bingo! Even across different countries (hence me mentioning pt-PT vs. pt-BR) technical jargon can vary, and you'd need at least one expert consultant and one translator (or, ideally, someone who can do both) for each language…
Regarding automatic translation, I've seen such stupidity on apps distributed by large companies that I suspect many didn't get the memo yet, but I hope they will after getting enough user feedback. Just yesterday I fired a string of five or six support tickets to Leroy Merlin (it's like a big French hardware store chain with locations across all of Europe), because their Enki home automation control app is full of bugs, and one of the last ones, pertaining to their deplorable translation efforts (complete with entire paragraphs in English on the very support ticket submission webform), was focused on this pearl: the usage of the Portuguese word “Perto”, which means “close” as in “nearby”, for the “Close” button, instead of the correct and standard verb “Fechar” in the infinitive. Interestingly, the app was, I suspect, done by French coders, but they must've standardised in English, because “Fermer”, the unambiguous conjugation of the same verb in French, would never translate into “Perto”… But that just goes to show how you just can't rely exclusive in “AI” (it's not true AGI, it's just LLMs, and LLMs are just mass plagiarising machines with some PR and advertising lipstick on them).

It pretty much has to be removed, as it no longer opens either the Typography window or the new Typography panel (at least on the Mac).
I would also suggest that the latter should be tucked into Window > Text > Typography, next to Character, Glyph Browser, Paragraph and Text Styles.
And that's me, a typography teacher saying it, but I'm not biased to the point of thinking that what is essentially an advanced version of the Typography section in the Character panel (which you can, indeed, open by clicking the “ellipsis/more…” button on the latter) should be a top-level, uncategorised panel.

Thanks for the correction. I'm obviously not as well-versed in this as Sérgio.
As for them not being able to be made variable, I wasn't sure of that but half-suspected already, and I don't see why it doesn't belong in this discussion, at least as a starting point, because after variable fonts… it's the next obvious omission to tackle. I kindly invite the mods to split the relevant posts into a new thread if need be, of course.
I would also add that said fact is not guaranteed to always be the case. If both formats take off, there can certainly be ways of making Colour-SVG fonts support variable axes. As a matter of fact, that same philosophy could be applied to the format and turn colours, and maybe even texture and gradients, into editable “axes”, instead of the format relying exclusively on Stylistic Sets as it still does, and those Stylistic Sets might even work as sub-fonts instead of the system, with their own axes, instead of being just presets of sorts.
Regarding that newfangled Open Font Format spec, I like it, though I fear will face a bit of an uphill battle against OpenType. Anyhoo, I'll be watching Behdad Esfahbod's (impressive CV, by the way) stream when I get the time, but I looked at his presentation deck already (he mentioned advantages for the UFO format, which is a good thing, and clearly knows well the history of formats, including arcane stuff such as METAFONT), and the fact that all these bright people are putting their minds to these issues fills me with confidence.
I'll be sure to check out all those resources, thanks!

Bingo! Even across different countries (hence me mentioning pt-PT vs. pt-BR) technical jargon can vary, and you'd need at least one expert consultant and one translator (or, ideally, someone who can do both) for each language…
Regarding automatic translation, I've seen such stupidity on apps distributed by large companies that I suspect many didn't get the memo yet, but I hope they will after getting enough user feedback. Just yesterday I fired a string of five or six support tickets to Leroy Merlin (it's like a big French hardware store chain with locations across all of Europe), because their Enki home automation control app is full of bugs, and one of the last ones, pertaining to their deplorable translation efforts (complete with entire paragraphs in English on the very support ticket submission webform), was focused on this pearl: the usage of the Portuguese word “Perto”, which means “close” as in “nearby”, for the “Close” button, instead of the correct and standard verb “Fechar” in the infinitive. Interestingly, the app was, I suspect, done by French coders, but they must've standardised in English, because “Fermer”, the unambiguous conjugation of the same verb in French, would never translate into “Perto”… But that just goes to show how you just can't rely exclusive in “AI” (it's not true AGI, it's just LLMs, and LLMs are just mass plagiarising machines with some PR and advertising lipstick on them).

The reason why you notice lots of posts in these forums mentioning Adobe products is… the fact that the 80lb gorilla snuffed out most of the competition (more on it later), which means there's not much in the way of choice. Yes, I know, there is F/OSS, but its technical limitations and sometimes subpar UX (and that is a hill I'm going to die and rot on, sorry… I've now studied enough UX to find and explain faults even in the relatively user-friendly offerings by Serif and those by Adobe, and I completely understand why F/OSS in the creative industries still hasn't taken off, save for Blender and other notable exceptions) pretty much push people either into those nice, prosumer offerings on the Mac App Store, or to Adobe subscriptions, especially if they've worked with the latter in school (as is so often the case, hence Canva's push into that market).
People don't assume anything; Serif's swagger, and straight up copying of the former Adobe Creative Suite Design Standard product matrix (minus the professional PDF editor, sadly), and now the new and aforementioned post-Canva acquisition free licensing for education markets, solidify that position. It's not a perception, it's a fact.
And let's be fair, Affinity gets users maybe 90% of the way there, but it's those 10% of functionality that it doesn't yet cover, that make Adobe a true “jack of all trades”, which make all the difference. Many of the people you see here either need those extra 10% or anticipate they or their students (as is my case) may need them.
About the only thing most agree(d) on (and I say agreed, because we'll soon see an influx of Canva users who may be very content with their subscriptions) was that they wanted to own their own software, full stop. Again, there are very practical reasons for that, it's not just basic daily economics or a matter of principle (which it also is, of course).
While I agree with you on the market being big enough for everyone, there was ZERO competition against the former “Adobe Creative Suite Design Standard” suite/combo as a whole… But there was, and still is, proper competition when it comes to each of its individual components, albeit less integrated. One could feasibly purchase a perpetual Corel Draw Graphics Suite license, plonk down some extra on one for QuarkXPress, and boom, there you have it, a fully professional pipeline, with no subscriptions. A very expensive and less integrated one, for sure, but a very capable one nonetheless. And, indeed, analogous of what we used in the pre-Creative suite days… I was personally trained in Photoshop, Freehand *and* QuarkXPress, and that was the combo I used for the first two years of my bachelor, only to jump ship to Illustrator – which I still don't enjoy using as much as I did using Freehand, to this day – because of the infamous Macromedia acquisition and to InDesign because, yeah, truth be told, it was always miles ahead of Quark in terms of not just platform support – Quark really shot themselves on the foot with their belated transition to what was then called Mac OS X, oof – but also on UX and features.
Did we get greedy with the advent of Affinity…? Perhaps. But you have to appreciate that it's highly frustrating to see it get all the way to 90% there and then… just remain indefinitely “meh” and effectively incomplete for a lot of users, because the powers-that-be had to pay the bills and realised the only way to do so was to invest in new, sexy features for illustrators (which, as I've said before, are well covered by other tools) rather than tick all the unsexy boxes for classic vector design and DTP. Hence all the incessant comparisons! Of course, Adobe is also catering to those digital-first or even digital-only illustrators, even in Illustrator (ha! It's finally rising up to its name), but that's the thing: there are other tools besides Illustrator and Affinity Designer that also do, and likely do an even better job than either, because they're not jacks-of-all-trades.
As for DTP and print production workflows… the only integrated packages now are Adobe's and Serif's, period. They are, effectively, rivals (and now, with Canva's backing, if Affinity is to thrive as a product under its wing, even more so), and while I can also see code and UX as a quasi-artistic endeavour and as much as I appreciate your “Kumbaya” stance regarding software, at the end of the day they are tools (for artists, yes), not artistic creations in and of themselves. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and do I have to remind you that Adobe eats Serif-sized companies for breakfast? And that whenever Adobe does that and just discontinues products, peoples' livelihoods are affected? And that the same happening at the hands of Canva would make zero difference in that outcome?

How it currently works: "Strings" + "Unicode UTF-16":

For what purpose / advantage?  Not only the interface layout requires adjustments to make "hundreds of languages" fit without cropping or other issues, also the Help and all tutorials, static or video, various websites (incl. store and forum) would need an according translation to make sense of "hundreds of languages" for the app interface.
Apart from the required effort to complete your vague and superficial "idea" its sense gets reduced if you consider who could in fact benefit from this work. It is not the users of "hundreds of languages" who might not even be able to purchase soft- or hardware but this would also require understanding of all the localised terms: For example, while you can translate "Leading Override" or "Curve Adjustment" into any language, it might not have the meaning used in DTP.
So, without additional education of users + translation of related documents, an app interface in "hundreds of languages" isn't useful but simply redundant – while with education also one of the existing interface languages got learned quite likely and thus an interface in "hundreds of languages" is redundant, too.
(Not to mention the "idea" that automatic translation will become carried out by AI in more and more areas, without a need for extra manpower or feature requests)

Yes, (amongst other subjects) I studied French and I studied Chemistry, yet alas there was nothing about even basic chemistry in my learning of French.
William
PS When i refer to "my learning of French" I mean my learning of just some French at a general education level.
 

The reason why you notice lots of posts in these forums mentioning Adobe products is… the fact that the 80lb gorilla snuffed out most of the competition (more on it later), which means there's not much in the way of choice. Yes, I know, there is F/OSS, but its technical limitations and sometimes subpar UX (and that is a hill I'm going to die and rot on, sorry… I've now studied enough UX to find and explain faults even in the relatively user-friendly offerings by Serif and those by Adobe, and I completely understand why F/OSS in the creative industries still hasn't taken off, save for Blender and other notable exceptions) pretty much push people either into those nice, prosumer offerings on the Mac App Store, or to Adobe subscriptions, especially if they've worked with the latter in school (as is so often the case, hence Canva's push into that market).
People don't assume anything; Serif's swagger, and straight up copying of the former Adobe Creative Suite Design Standard product matrix (minus the professional PDF editor, sadly), and now the new and aforementioned post-Canva acquisition free licensing for education markets, solidify that position. It's not a perception, it's a fact.
And let's be fair, Affinity gets users maybe 90% of the way there, but it's those 10% of functionality that it doesn't yet cover, that make Adobe a true “jack of all trades”, which make all the difference. Many of the people you see here either need those extra 10% or anticipate they or their students (as is my case) may need them.
About the only thing most agree(d) on (and I say agreed, because we'll soon see an influx of Canva users who may be very content with their subscriptions) was that they wanted to own their own software, full stop. Again, there are very practical reasons for that, it's not just basic daily economics or a matter of principle (which it also is, of course).
While I agree with you on the market being big enough for everyone, there was ZERO competition against the former “Adobe Creative Suite Design Standard” suite/combo as a whole… But there was, and still is, proper competition when it comes to each of its individual components, albeit less integrated. One could feasibly purchase a perpetual Corel Draw Graphics Suite license, plonk down some extra on one for QuarkXPress, and boom, there you have it, a fully professional pipeline, with no subscriptions. A very expensive and less integrated one, for sure, but a very capable one nonetheless. And, indeed, analogous of what we used in the pre-Creative suite days… I was personally trained in Photoshop, Freehand *and* QuarkXPress, and that was the combo I used for the first two years of my bachelor, only to jump ship to Illustrator – which I still don't enjoy using as much as I did using Freehand, to this day – because of the infamous Macromedia acquisition and to InDesign because, yeah, truth be told, it was always miles ahead of Quark in terms of not just platform support – Quark really shot themselves on the foot with their belated transition to what was then called Mac OS X, oof – but also on UX and features.
Did we get greedy with the advent of Affinity…? Perhaps. But you have to appreciate that it's highly frustrating to see it get all the way to 90% there and then… just remain indefinitely “meh” and effectively incomplete for a lot of users, because the powers-that-be had to pay the bills and realised the only way to do so was to invest in new, sexy features for illustrators (which, as I've said before, are well covered by other tools) rather than tick all the unsexy boxes for classic vector design and DTP. Hence all the incessant comparisons! Of course, Adobe is also catering to those digital-first or even digital-only illustrators, even in Illustrator (ha! It's finally rising up to its name), but that's the thing: there are other tools besides Illustrator and Affinity Designer that also do, and likely do an even better job than either, because they're not jacks-of-all-trades.
As for DTP and print production workflows… the only integrated packages now are Adobe's and Serif's, period. They are, effectively, rivals (and now, with Canva's backing, if Affinity is to thrive as a product under its wing, even more so), and while I can also see code and UX as a quasi-artistic endeavour and as much as I appreciate your “Kumbaya” stance regarding software, at the end of the day they are tools (for artists, yes), not artistic creations in and of themselves. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and do I have to remind you that Adobe eats Serif-sized companies for breakfast? And that whenever Adobe does that and just discontinues products, peoples' livelihoods are affected? And that the same happening at the hands of Canva would make zero difference in that outcome?

Yes, you are right.
Some people make statements as if they are fact, then if it turns out that it is not always true, they start waffling about "well, in ninety-nine per cent of cases" and so on.
I have no experience of Adobe products. I notice lots of posts in these forums mention Adobe products.
Why do so many people assume that Canva wants to compete with Adobe?
I remember one famous female country music singer said to other female country music singers that there is enough for all of us.
I am reminded that years ago i bought a book that is a collection of early science fiction stories from the late 1800s to early 1900s. The title is Rivals of H. G. Wells. Why Rivals? If I write a science fiction novel and publish it, I am not a rival of some other science fiction writer, it is just that I wrote a science fiction novel.
Would you like to read it ... please?
There is rather a lot so if you just want to dip in, Chapters 5 and 34 are good chapters to do that.
Oh, and Chapter 21.
But the thing is, some people might start on about the novel just being fanciful and unrealistic, but if they say that before having read the whole novel ... well!
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/novel_plus.htm
One of my inventions was particularly successful. Something I devised and for which I coined a new word to describe it and after a while, I wrote a letter to the editor of a trade magazine about it and the letter was published, with the new word in it, openly stating that was what I called it. Well, there was a reply criticising the idea yet using the word that I had coined and the heading of that letter had the word that I had coined in it. One thing followed another and I was invited to jointly author a paper for an international conference of which I had not previously known about and there I saw my invention working. And the word I coined is now in the Oxford English Dictionary and the etymology of the word lists my letter to the editor of the trade magazine as the first use in print of the word that I coined.
William
 

No PDF/X export (not a single version... and before getting quoted, I know, it's said to be coming before 1.3...but IMO, that's a major feature for pro work, should be there already) which a lot of us need for almost every gig/project for serious print output. And having tried it, I have found bugs (and some strange workflows) even in the very first fast try (confirmed later several times). Still, amazing software, with many features for inkers (I'm kind of one), and it is very much worth the bucks (I'm a 'software collector', so it is not "this instead of", but "and"... still haven't bought it, though, that lack was too important). So, a great software with certain lacks and bugs, just like I would define A. Designer (I like more Affinity Photo, but that's me) or how I would also describe Xara Designer Pro. Too many years since I used Corel D. for work, though, and the permanent license price is out of question, with the current competition.  I don't see many advantages (no real winner among all these, imo. Corel, maybe) in one versus the other or the other one, except when/if needing certain workflow or feature for a project or bunch of projects, as to decide one certain route or another. But in that, I find a lot more useful what Inkscape has to offer me, currently. It's in many of my workflows, indeed, working together with Designer, as fast as copy-pasting nodes! (or exporting, etc) and since a very long while. Indeed, would it (Inskcape) have proper (full) CMYK handling and professional PDF/X export, and some other things fixed, and I'd use it a lot more, almost as my main one for vectors. I successfully do the workflow Inkscape-> Scribus-> PDF/X (just as a curiosity, as I don't need it. And always great to get extra ways, that's my motto), which, btw, besides PDF/X-3 and PDF/X-4, includes the arcane but yet strictly required by some companies PDF/X-1a:2001 (happily, seems Ingram now accepts PDF/X-3:2002 as well) , but I recon the workflow is not yet full newcomer friendly, I needed to solve/guess a number of issues. And I have zero probs with uncommon or hard UIs ...I'd say right now it's more uncommon than hard (just like with Blender).
Outside Adobe, I think there's always going to be some kind of trade for no subscription, no monopoly. But yep, those problems in Designer do need to be fixed (and adding the option for "practical" zero smoothing -well, it's always an average, anyway- while drawing with brushes, etc). I suspect that a lot of that will come, step by step.
 

I would disagree.
That thread is specifically for discussing the Variable Font support coming in the 2.5.0 beta, not for general font-related discussions. It should be restricted to its stated purpose, to help the beta run smoothly.

@Ash What is the plan since PDFs and SVGs don't support these?

This is almost as bad as RED getting a patent on lossy-compressed RAW encodings that happen to be above a certain resolution.  Making it specific to high resolutions suddenly gets past prior art of doing exactly the same thing at lower resolutions, which had been around since before RED existed?  Patenting a specific algorithm for doing that - maybe, but stretching it.  Patenting it as a concept?  Inexcusable.
There is plenty of software which moved (or duplicated) sliders and numeric fields onto the canvas in the form of handles, so creating on-canvas handles for yet another set of sliders is suddenly inventive enough to be patentable?  The patent offices may be stupid enough to let something like that slide, but they certainly shouldn't be.
Direct manipulation of just about anything should be an obvious end goal by now, hardly inventive enough to be considered for a patent, even if no one else has tried it yet.

This is typical of GFs own fonts.
But for most fonts the upstream repository is going to have static TTF fonts without overlaps. And OTF fonts too. OTF static fonts never have overlaps, so that is the easiest work-around.
And you can remove the overlaps yourself - I used FoundryTools-CLI (in GitHub) to remove the overlaps on the Roboto Condensed fonts above.
And you could use it to convert the TTF fonts to OTF fonts.

The COLR table was added in OpenType 1.7, in 2015, (for the COLRv0 format).
The COLRv1 format was added in OpenType 1.9, in Dec. 2021 (so that part is newer).
Color fonts using either COLR format can be variable.
Color-SVG fonts cannot be variable - so they really do not belong in this discussion.
Proposed changes and updates to the OpenType spec can be followed on GitHub.
Here: https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/typography-issues
Future font technology is also being developed on GitHub, and in an ISO group.
The code development and specs are here:
https://github.com/harfbuzz/boring-expansion-spec?tab=readme-ov-file
They have been interacting with the ISO for developing the Open Font Format specification.
There is a newsgroup set-up by the ISO where this is discussed.
Note: the Open Font Format will actually be open, unlike other ISO "public" standards which must be paid for (people made a lot of noise) so you can download the current version from the ISO "free" standards page.
No patents involved as far as I can tell.

Note that the Typography panel can still be opened with Text > Show Typography. Perhaps this command should be removed now that it's in the Window menu?

Word. @Ash, if you want me to try and patch Sérgio Martins (former type design engineer at Adobe who worked on the colour SVG version of Carol Twombly's Trajan Pro – incidentally, Adobe's very first colour font) through, hit me up.
Both my PhD supervisor and I have worked with him as co-tutors before, so he's just a phone call away, and if anyone is well-versed in the colour OpenType-SVG font spec, that would be him. Last time I've checked, he's currently freelancing as a type design engineer and only giving the occasional lecture at Reading, so… short of poaching employees straight from Adobe, that's the next best thing. 😉
Just a heads-up: he will most likely charge fees for consultancy, but such is the cost of doing business with experts living in the über-expensive Lisbon metro area, I guess. 🙃

The best thread to discuss font-related functionality would now be the sub-thread related to the upcoming variable font support in v2.5 beta. IMHO, I would say it is a feature worth adding, because it's something that Adobe offers and is becoming trendier, and could be very popular among big sectors of Affinity's and Canva's userbase. 
I provided Ash with a recommendation of one of the best experts in colour OpenType-SVG fonts in Europe – and one used to work in the UK, no less –, so the ball is on their court and let's see just how loaded with cash and willing to expand Serif is now, post-acquisition. I take it that they still have to have a bit of restraint in their recruiting process (be it for full-time employees, contractors or consultants), project management and goals, etc., but we should indeed expect speedier development from now on. The ball is on their court, in any case.
Interesting as this feature may sound, I highly doubt it will ever be available. It's extremely niche, and might result in quality control issues if lower quality, user-made localisation files ended up on the web. Also, with Affinity potentially becoming bigger, hiring more people for their localisation efforts would render said feature redundant for a lot of communities.
And, if I may say so myself as someone from a minority community of one of top languages globally (Portuguese from Portugal, not Brazilian Portuguese), while it saddens me to see the technical design and typography jargon in pt-PT wither away (I do fight against that by recommending technical dictionaries to my students, mind you), I don't see people defaulting to English on technical software as that dire of an issue when it comes to serving a global market (RTL and Indic script support, on the other hand…). These apps' UIs are usually very sparse on text, and YouTube and the web are chock-full of tutorials using the English terminology anyway. My €0,02.

What would be really interesting would be to also find a way to represent at least some of the common ones as handles on the letters (when zoomed in far enough!!!) the way that handles are used for rounding rectangles and shaping gears and the like...
The Typography panel would be a logical place for these otherwise, in my way of thinking.

As I understand the situation, due to lots of funding becoming available, Affinity can now become developed further and more rapidly than before.
Are there roles where people currently do not use Affinity products because Affinity products do not do what those people need and who might start to use Affinity products if Affinity products were to add some particular facility to what they do?
For example, unless things have changed recently, Affinity products do not have built-in colour font capability. What employment roles need colour font capability? Would adding colour font capability to Affinity products increase sales to an extent to make the cost of adding colour font capability worth spending?
Or is adding colour font capability something that will be added anyway because not having it looks unfortunate?
That is just one example.
No. I am retired, I am not connected to Canva, my only connection to Serif and Affinity is as a customer.
William
 

oki, will do so, as I too hate it when I can't finish reading something... (maybe I'll remove it again tomorrow or so, then)
Yep, I often make a local copy of what I wrote before I delete it, mostly if there's some conclusion I want to keep for myself or sth.