 |  |
 | Developing fonts > Specifications Font delivery specification The purpose of this document is to define the Microsoft Typography requirements and expectations of all deliverables. There are 3 types of font file deliveries:
NOTE: The first delivery of any font is version 0.70. Example: 2.1. Evaluation delivery (alpha) With most of Microsoft's font vendors, this evaluation stage is to verify the correctness of the design and final (TrueType) outline quality. With vendors that have proven to Microsoft that they deliver high quality outlines and have a solid quality audit process, this delivery should not be necessary. 2.1.1 New fonts All new font design requirements should conform to the Microsoft Character Design Standards. A quality audit should be performed by the vendor to verify the font is free of errors in shape, rendering at higher resolution, and all characters defined in the project's delivery contract are present. The vendor should use printed proofs that show all characters at a large size (72 point and above) and high resolution (600 dpi or above) for checking each glyph, including the placement of diacritics over base glyphs. A test of each glyph's outline, spaced between control characters at a comfortable size dependent on the resolution. At 600 dpi, 14 point and 24 point size should be sufficient for character spacing checks. These proofs should be checked for errors. As a part of the test, composite character metrics should be checked to insure they are on the same metrics as like characters. This test could be performed programmatically or done visually by placing ten continuous characters in a line between vertical bars.
|AAAAAAAAAA| Errors include: incorrect character design, bad marking with visual rough areas, dents or flat areas that should be smooth and straight stems that aren't exactly straight, horizontal spacing problems, and diacritic placement problems. 2.1.2. Updates to released fonts Fonts that have been previously delivered to Microsoft are considered the Master font file source for any future release. This Master file includes the Quadratic B-Spline TrueType outlines and all TrueType font file tables. No changes should be made to these outlines or tables unless it has been decided a correction to the Master data is needed. These corrections include corrections to technical data, corrects to outline design or outline markings and updates to compensate for changes in design criteria, tastes or style. 2.2. Beta release candidate This delivery should be a functional font, free of problems that will cause the font to not perform. This delivery should have been checked and pass all items in section 2.1 for an Evaluation Delivery. In addition the font should pass the following tests: 2.2.1. Flint: Flint is a Windows application that checks the font's hinting data and rasterization. 2.2.2. Word formatting test: This test is a Microsoft Word document [MSWSmoke.doc - 45.5KB] used to quickly and visually identify any behaviours that may indicate a font bug. It uses Word's text formatting menu items and shows how the values from the 'OS/2' table will appear and how the font works as a typeface family. The document includes:
2.3. Final release candidate This delivery is what the vendor considers a bug free, shippable and fully finished font file. 2.3.1. Design and outline tests and outline QA complete The font has been evaluated by the same quality audit tests as described in section 2.1 Evaluation delivery and section 2.2 Beta release candidate. 2.3.2. Font hinting production complete The font conforms to the Microsoft hinting and production guidelines. All glyphs have been coded to show the best image at all screen and printer sizes and resolutions. 2.3.3. Vendor quality audit/proofing The vendor is responsible for insuring when the font hinting production is complete and that a formal quality audit is performed by an individual or QA team to verify its completeness. This person or QA team is comprised of members that are not responsible for the hinted final font or fonts. This requirement is essential for proper and objective validation of the font file. Having a font proofed by the person who hinted the font would be like asking a cook if the food is any good. You won't get an objective answer. 2.3.4. Font properties complete: Using the Font Properties Editor, all fields should be edited and checked. The fields are:
Once a font is completed and delivered, Microsoft will provide the vendor one of three types of feedback reports: Release Report, Itemized Minor Bug Report, or Rejected Delivery General Report. 3.1. Release Report The font is complete and has passed all technical and esthetic tests. Once the font has been released, the font vendor will be notified of its release. A request will be made to the font vendor to supply the source file to accompany the final delivered binary font file. 3.2. Itemized Minor Bug Report This is a numeric bug report of minor technical and aesthetic problems that Microsoft has found during a review of the Final release candidate delivery. These items must be corrected before the font file can be released. Microsoft will review a Final release candidate delivery and create itemized bug reports for fonts that contain individual minor bugs up to ~5% of the total glyph count (which would be 15 minor bugs in a font of 300 glyphs). We consider 5% to be the acceptable maximum number of minor bugs in a delivery. Once we reach this bug count in our review cycle, we no longer can accept this delivery as a final releasable font file, or one with minor bugs warranting an itemized bug report. The font is then considered not a finished font file and is given a Rejected Delivery General Report (see section 3.3). Sample report: Itemized minor bug report for : Font Name: General comment: Glyph specific items : Font Name: General comment: Glyph specific items : 3.2.1. Minor and major bugs
3.3. Rejected Delivery General Report This type of report is a general report describing the major areas that contain repeated, serious or major bugs that are too numerous to warrant an itemized list. This type of report indicates the font file did not follow the delivery guidelines and is not a final shippable file. The vendor should provide a report addressing each minor and major item, either describing the changes made to the font in response to these items, or explaining why no action could be taken. Sample response to above sample Itemized Minor Bug Report: response Itemized minor bug report for : Font Name: General comment: Glyph specific items : Font Name: General comment: Glyph specific items : Last updated 19 April 1999. |
Top of page