Italic shapes #6

Closed
greedy opened this Issue Sep 25, 2012 · 193 comments
@greedy

It would be great to have italic shapes too. Auto-italics will wreak havoc on characters like \ / and |.

@pauldhunt pauldhunt was assigned Sep 25, 2012
@miguelsousa
Adobe Fonts member

Quoting Paul: "If there is enough interest in companion italics for Source Code, hopefully the community will help to develop them."

@greedy

@miguelsousa wouldn't it be appropriate to keep the issue open so it is recognized that italics is desired and a contribution of italic shapes would be accepted?

@pauldhunt pauldhunt reopened this Sep 25, 2012
@pauldhunt

I think so. We’ll leave this an open issue for now and see what comes of it.

@miguelsousa
Adobe Fonts member

Agree.

@Francisc

Some editors or themes make use of italics for special or otherwise reserved words.

I'm in favour of italics.

@njx

This is an issue for Brackets too (we had to turn off bold/italics in the Markdown mode we got from CodeMirror, which uses them by default).

@Melindrea

I will add as well that italics would be of interest to me.

I will try to see what I can do to help, though I know little of how to make fonts, so I fear that "making encouraging noises" is about what I can do.

@koenpunt

Italic would be nice, so it can be used in TextMate :)

@ashemedai

Add my vote/interest for it. Both my source code in IntelliJ IDEA as well as Sublime Text highlighting uses italics and the faux italics/slant Source Code Pro uses right now is not "good enough" for me to work with. So in the end I had to revert back to Consolas.

@smlombardi

Add my vote for a true italic. It is very nice to have in Vera Sans Mono.

@sorlok

I'd like proper italics too, if at all possible. (I tend to use italics to style code comments).

@corelon

+1 from me too. We live in the world of theme-able editors and it is a pretty useful addition. Especially since most text editors default to having comments in italics.

@Moncader

I'd also love to see italics for use in Sublime Text as well.

@tanc

+1 it would complete the font.

@Uglyface200

+1 from me. Consolas has a beautiful, contrasting italic face. Source Code Pro just isn't complete without italics.

I think the actual design should be fairly simple; we could simply base the italics on those from Source Sans Pro.

@pauldhunt

I think that we all agree that italics would be a very useful addition to this (or any) typeface family. I previously fielded a similar request on our blog where I stated:

Although The letterforms of Source Sans are mostly oblique forms, that doesn’t mean they were generated automagically. The Italics represent about as much work as the upright design. If there is enough interest in companion italics for Source Code, hopefully the community will help to develop them.
Typblography: Announcing Source Code Pro

Perhaps we will seed this project with some source files in the new year and see what those of you interested can contribute.

@mfkp

+1 italics for SublimeText

@Uglyface200

Some of us can't afford FontLab Studio, or whatever program opens the source files you provide. Could you possibly release the files in the .sfd format, so us poor men using FontForge can edit them?

@pauldhunt
@zrob

Appreciate the great font. Italics would be great.
+1 italics for SublimeText

@adben

+1, Source Code Pro needs true italics.

@pauldhunt

I agree, true italics would be nice, but until one if our customers builds a time machine... We will have to wait until I have time to do it or someone else helps with the development. +1’s won’t get us thrre any sooner although I am encouraged by your interest in this project.

@Francisc

+1 !!

@vikky49

+1

@xiel

+1

@pauldhunt

/0 just kidding! just letting you know that I have actually started into exploring italic shapes for Source Code, however I have a lot of projects on my plate at the moment that take precedence, so thank you for your continued patience and interest in this project.

@phaistonian
@Melindrea

You rock =) I really wish I could help you, but this is not something I can do, so all I can do is cheering you on.

@pauldhunt

no ETA, but I guess I should add this along with some other things to the roadmap...

@brunogama

+1 for italics

@chriskrycho

I concur with the above. Source Code Pro will be the perfect software development typeface once it has italics, so I look forward to hearing when this is completed. As it is, it's already my preferred typeface by a substantial margin—especially with the light weight using light text on a dark background—and italics would simply cement that.

@Bengt

+1 Italics are essential, because they are expected by some editors.

@toph-allen

+1, italics would rock.

@ghost

+1, I would love to see italics here too. I'd be willing to take a stab at working on them, but I've never contributed to an open source project, nor have I played much with FontForge. If I can figure out the best way to offer help in getting this done, I'll do so.

@davidpmccormick

Another +1 for italics. Yeah! Who's with me? It-a-lics. It-a-lics. It-a-lics….

@mretondo

Another +1 for italics. I too use IntelliJ IDEA for Java and it defaults to using italic for statics.

@der-onkel

Also +1 for italic. It is indispensable for IntelliJ IDEA!

@notthetup

+1 for Italics. Now that Google's pushing Intellij for Android, this is going to be critical..

@pauldhunt
@chinmay

@pauldhunt What explanation is expected out of me?

@frankrolf
Adobe Fonts member
@der-onkel

Yes for comments and more important for all static fields and methodes

@notthetup

Google's moved from Eclipse to Intellij IDEA for it's Android IDE. So many developers will be moving to it pretty soon.

http://developer.android.com/sdk/installing/studio.html

And Intellij IDEA uses Italics in code highlighting..

Here's an example of how Source Code Pro vs Monaco looks in the new Android Studio.

sourcecodepro

Source Code Pro

monaco

Monaco

@codeman38

@notthetup: What's bizarre is that Monaco doesn't actually have an italic style either. So why does it render oblique characters when Source Code doesn't? Did Apple do some sort of OS-level magic on that particular font?

Edited to add: Just tested on my own MacBook, and apparently the blank characters are an issue with using the OpenType version of Source Code Pro in IntelliJ. If you install the TrueType version instead, it will render fake italics like Monaco does. Still not as good as a true italic, but at least it's readable.

@chriskrycho
@notthetup

@codeman38 : OK. Thanks for the clarification. I'll check out the TrueType version later. Apologies for not knowing the difference. I'm guessing even with true Italics font support, unless IntelliJ supports it, one will still see the 'fake italics'.

@notthetup

OK. I verified that Source Code Pro TrueType (ttf) works fine with IntelliJ IDEA or Android Studio.

For anyone on OSX trying to get this combination to work, you'll have to add in the SCP .ttf files to this folder :
/System/Library/JavaVM.Framework/Home/lib/fonts

Not just the OSX FontBook.

@chriskrycho
@vikky49

+1 for italics..That would be a great help ..Great work

@c0h1b4

+1 for italics. This is a great font and it deserves italics.

@adben

This issue is 9 months old!.. this is an open source project, we as community should be able to produce proper italics.
I'm not a font designer, what are the necessary steps to be taken in order to produce the italics for this font?

@ultrasquid
@Bengt

Since nobody has reported working on italics until now, it seems obvious that one person alone will not be able to do it at least as a hobbyist. I think, this leaves two options: Paying someone to get it done as a full-time or part-time job, or crowdsourcing it. Since this is a project of Adobe, I would doubt that crowd funding would be successful. On the other hand, it's on GitHub and we have all tools needed to crowdsource development of italics. This repository does not have a way of contributing other than suggestions via email and issues like this one predefined. As both seem ineffective for developing another font variant, I would propose these steps implement an alternative way of contributing:

  1. Fork this repo to an organization.
  2. Everyone who wants to help manage this endeavour, asks the admin to get added to the collaborators.
  3. The Collaborators divide the work into pieces small enough to be done by single collaborators.
  4. Those who wish to edit the font, fork this repo and issue pull request against the organizations's repo.
  5. The collaborators evaluate and help integrate the pull requests to the repo.
  6. When all pieces of work are done, issue a pull request to this repo.
  7. The collaborators work together with Adobe to integrate the pull request.

I believe the collaborators need to be experienced with developing fonts more than the other groups. The people working on the fonts would necessarily be anyone with a GitHub account and the organization admin would only need to be able to check for the collaborators experience.

@chakrit

How about crowdfunding this? How much does it cost to hire a professional to do a simple italic version for the time being? Then the repo maintainers could take a look at them and comment but at least we'd be able to use Source Code Pro for all our code without these annoying issues.

@miguelsousa
Adobe Fonts member

@chakrit I think that's a pretty good idea. I also think that the crowdfunding initiative should need to be initiated by non-Adobe people, otherwise contributing to it may be a non-starter for some people

@mretondo

Good idea, what about Kickstart?

@davidpmccormick

If anyone's issue was (like mine) simply that their code editor wouldn't even do 'fake' versions of the italics (Coda 2), I made some 10º slanted versions of each weight: my fork.

@miguelsousa
Adobe Fonts member

@davidpmccormick Hey that's great, but I need to point out that you're breaking the license, items 2 and 3. Please make the necessary modifications to abide by the license. Thanks.

@frankrolf
Adobe Fonts member

In detail: You’ll cannot distribute the fonts under the same name, but need to rename the fonts in your fork; and also must add the LICENSE.txt file.
Thanks!

@Bengt

@davidpmccormick Cool hack you got there. It sure makes Source Code Pro much more usable. I hope it inspires others to create a proper solution.

@davidpmccormick

@miguelsousa @frankrolf Thanks for the heads-up; I'm not very good at taking such things into consideration. Think I've dealt with it now.

@Comanche

@davidpmccormick Is it possible to get the TTF of your modified version with hinting?
Thanks!

@frankrolf
Adobe Fonts member
@chrsw

This is my favorite font and I would love it even more with italics.

@jlanzarotta

+1 in favor of italics... Hopefully it will arrive soon...

@tuananh

👍 for adding italics!

@rodrigoelp

Is anybody working on italics for this font?

@tuananh

I really want to use this in Intellij IDEA : (

@notthetup

Update to my comment earlier.

On OSX 10.9 Mavericks the location of the Java Home folder has moved. So if to have Source Code Pro with Android Studio (and I'm guessing Intellij IDEA) you can add the .ttf fonts to this directory.

/Library/Java/Home/lib/fonts

It works for me.

screen shot 2014-01-09 at 12 18 32 pm

@sinondo

in favor of italics... Hopefully it will arrive soon...

@bukanijam

+1 for italics

@geonewlitho

+1 for italics

@jlanzarotta

Any word on this?
+1 for crowd sourcing or a kickstarting this effort.

@vikky49

I think all the Java and Intelli J folks really appreciate Italics as they go through some rendering issues for italic fonts.

@john2x

Emacs folks will love italics as well :) 👍

@otac0n

👍

@chrsw

At this point maybe Adobe should come out and say they don't have any intention on working on this "issue" and close it. And I don't blame them if that's the case; this isn't a trivial undertaking.

@miguelsousa
Adobe Fonts member

At this point maybe Adobe should come out and say they don't have any intention on working on this "issue" and close it.

No, it shouldn't. In case it's not clear enough, we fully agree that having italics is important, and we're doing what we can to make that happen. As with all things, resources are limited, and right now we (the Adobe Type Development team) must be all-hands on other projects.

The other thing that ALL of you has to have in mind is that, this is an open source project, and as such anyone interested in it or in a particular feature is responsible to help make that happen. Even if you don't have font development skills, I'm sure you have other skills that can be leveraged. Therefore don't put the whole burned on us, Adobe, to get the job done. We've started this project, we have a long list of items in the roadmap, and we'll get there faster with everyone's help.

@chrsw

I'm thankful to Adobe for starting in this project in the first place.
I'd like this feature but I don't expect Adobe, or anyone else to work it. I highly doubt I'd ever contribute to anything on this project because I know almost nothing about fonts. But if I'm wrong and there is some way for someone like me to contribute I'd love to hear it.
My concern is that as long as it's a open issue someone who would otherwise take some kind of initiative might incorrectly assume that Adobe will get around to it eventually or that work is already underway.
I've been on projects where legitimate issues or highly desired features were closed and WONTFIX'd simply because they're just not feasible based on time constraints and project resources. It's a completely valid reason to close an issue and it has nothing to do with Adobe's commitment to the project or community.

@pauldhunt

as previously stated, i have already begun work on this issue, but have not had time to focus on this as would be needed to actually produce viable fonts (due to other obligations). We are currently brainstorming how best to get this work done as so many of you have expressed interest.

@miguelsousa
Adobe Fonts member

but I don't expect Adobe, or anyone else to work it

Hmm, @pauldhunt already mentioned a few times that he has done some work toward this feature, so I don't understand why you think that way.

But if I'm wrong and there is some way for someone like me to contribute I'd love to hear it.

Here's some fodder for you and everyone on this thread: Do you know a font designer? Do you have a friend that knows a font designer? Can you interest a font designer to contribute to this project? Can you drive a fundraising campaign to support your font designer friend? Do you know of or work for an institution/group/company that needs the italics sooner? Can you convince that institution/group/company to sponsor the font designer? And so on...

My concern is that as long as it's a open issue someone who would otherwise take some kind of initiative might incorrectly assume that Adobe will get around to it eventually or that work is already underway.

We will get around to do it, but clearly not fast enough for many of you here. We plan to leave this issue open until it is resolved, either by us or by someone else. And anyone interested in contributing to it can 1) read the posts above to get the sense of where this issue stands, and 2) announce that he/she is about to start working on it.

It's a completely valid reason to close an issue and it has nothing to do with Adobe's commitment to the project or community.

I think this is where you're missing the bigger picture. I made the same mistake when I prematurely closed this issue. Just because we "hold the keys" to this repository it shouldn't mean that we close all the issues which we have no plans to fix/do ourselves (BTW, this is not one of those). We feel that our role is to shepherd this project and to contribute to it as much as anyone else. Because lets face it, the project belongs to the community, which means that anyone interested is responsible for it and should be allowed to work on the issues they want to. Here's an example from the Source Sans repository which is labeled as DIY; we have no expertise or bandwidth to work on it, but we're leaving it open so that anyone else can.

@chrsw

I don't know any font designers or have experience running campaigns so probably the best I can do is contribute to a fundraising effort.
There's no "fast enough" for me. What's been done already is great. I was wrong in assuming the status of this issue could influence what another developer might contribute to it.
I also didn't want seem like I was entitled to anything. Especially something that Adobe may not have the resources to provide, despite the encouraging posts by @pauldhunt and the great work that had been done thus far.

@pauldhunt

here’s the seed if anyone does want to contribute to the design phase. however, please note that we will only accept professional grade work back into the main line.:
https://github.com/pauldhunt/SourceCodePro/tree/ItalicSeed

@5d
5d commented Feb 20, 2014

+1 for italics

@sjhcockrell

+1 for true italic being lovely.

I use Source Code Pro for my terminal editing, and having a true italic would be useful for the above, but also for formatting italics in markdown files dynamically.

@fredleblanc

+1 for italics, love Source Code Pro as it is, italics would be icing on the cake.

@dongcarl

italics please!!

@vikky49

+1 for Italics

@calfzhou

+1 for italics!!!

@mkanet

+1 for italics!!!

The only two fonts I personally prefer in SublimeText and Visual Studio are "Source Code Pro" and "Lucida Console". They seem like the only two coding fonts that don't jam up all the letters together (which is even worse for non-monospaced fonts).

I don't know if it's a coincidence; but both programming fonts I like the best don't have real italics.

If someone knows of a font similar to Source Code Pro/Lucida Console (that focuses on readability without compromising horizontal character spacing), please post here.

@Tyf0x

The one alternative I found is anonymous pro. Maybe you can give it a try? I personally use it in visual studio, notepad++ or sublime text.

@mkanet

@Tyf0x thanks for the suggestion. Anonymous Pro doesn't look similar to Source Code Pro in my opinion. It's look like its more closer to Times New Roman style.

@nvartolomei

Hey @adobe, we are sad!

@pauldhunt

Hey @nvartolomei, don’t be sad, we should have something to announce on this in the immediate future... Stay tuned.

@alexshk

@acusti overexcited? :)

@acusti
@acusti

@alexshk Yikes! Oh man, that’s hilarious and tremendously embarrassing 😳. My sincere apologies to all thread watchers who I spammed so hard.

Turns out leaving comments on GitHub from an iPad (at least one running iOS 6) is not a seamless experience. I tapped “Comment”, saw no change whatsoever to the state of the page, and so continued, to tap, tap and hold, double tap, etc. the “Comment” button over and over. I didn’t think to refresh the page.

Oh boy. Live and learn. At least the extent of my excitement about Source Code Pro italics should be unmistakeable.

@pauldhunt

Okay so here is the news:
We’ve been paying attention to the large number of requests here on GitHub to add italics to the Source Code family, and we’re now putting some resources towards their active development. I have previously created a set of outlines that will serve as a good starting point for the design, and we’ve commissioned type designer Teo Tuominen to continue their development to the level of quality our users expect. There will still be a several months’ wait, but this is now on track to be accomplished soon.

@mretondo
@adben

This is excellent news @pauldhunt!

@georgevreilly

Great to hear that you've commissioned Teo Tuominen to make italics, @pauldhunt!

@teotuominen

I've started working on the italics and it's off to a good start. So far I've been working on just the basic character set and adjusting the forms to fit the roman.

@pauldhunt I noticed that the overshoot in both masters is the same. Is there a technical reason for this? It looks a bit too little for the bold master.

I also felt that the slant in round letters (C, G, O) was optically too little, so I tweaked that as well. Also in the lowercase.

@pauldhunt

Thanks for the update, Teo. Personally, I haven't noticed there being any issue with the overshoot depth, so let’s just keep it as it is. Maybe you can show us a few images from time to time: it would be interesting to see what you did with the rounds (C, G, O, c, o).

@teotuominen

@pauldhunt I've now worked on the italics maintaining the same weigh the fonts had when I got them. To me the italics look optically lighter than the roman. Do you mind if I tweak the weight, or should I leave it as it is?

screen shot 2014-06-17 at 13 30 08
screen shot 2014-06-17 at 13 30 15

@pauldhunt

@teotuominen The weight difference is intentional and should be left as is. The purpose for this is less for coding applications (where the difference will likely be slight), but will hopefully be more noticeable in high-res environments where slant only is not typically enough to create a visual difference between upright and italic, therefore the difference in weight is introduced to provide sufficient differentiation between the upright and italic styles of the same weight. In case I had not pointed this out before, the italics for Source Code should not only harmonize with the uprights, but they should also resemble the italics for Source Sans Pro, so please also use those for reference.

@teotuominen

Here are images of the current state of the basic character set + lining figures. Soon to follow will be old style figures, punctuation and alternate characters.

sourcecodepro
sourcecodepro2
sourcecodepro3
sourcecodepro4
sourcecodepro5

@ndr-qef

@pauldhunt, @teotuominen, thanks for your work.

Are you planning to include the Greek character set in the first italics release?

@pauldhunt

@ndr-qef sorry, no.

@prgramly

that lc /m/ is really dense. the /w/ avoids the same problem because it is shortened in the middle. could the middle stem be shortened? it is not as much of a problem in the light version, but there is plenty of room there. probably too late at this point, since the italic needs to mirror the structure of the regular, but i just thought i would mention it.

@pauldhunt
@teotuominen

@prgramly like you said yourself, the italic shape needs to match the roman and it already has more white inside. I'm afraid that making it lighter still will take it too far from its roman counterpart.

This week I've started work on the oldstyle figures, denominators and punctuation. I'll go back to the basic character set again after working on other characters for a while.

source2
source22
source23

@frankrolf
Adobe Fonts member

@teotuominen I am sure this is only an oversight; just a heads-up:
A bunch of characters should stay upright even in the italic; such as /bar and also the mathematical operators.

@teotuominen

@frankrolf ah right. The bar is the only one I gave a slant to. Will change it back. The rest are still upright

@vikky49

Eagerly waiting to use Source Code pro now with italics for Java programming :-) 👍

@teotuominen

Progress on currency symbols, superscript characters and some basic diacritics.

sourcecodeproitalic
sourcecodeproitalic2
sourcecodeproitalic3

@teotuominen

Big update today. I've been working a lot on overall spacing of the fonts, diacritics and punctuation.

sourcecodeprodemo2-1
sourcecodeprodemo2-2
sourcecodeprodemo-1
sourcecodeprodemo-2
sourcecodeprodemo-3
sourcecodeprodemo-4
sourcecodeprodemo3-1
sourcecodeprodemo3-2

@pauldhunt

Dear Teo, some of the fitting looks strange to me in the text settings you have above. I would have thought that the default fitting of the mechanically sloped outlines was not too far off. I will likely have to take a closer look at this once you submit the updated UFOs. Regarding diacritics, you may not want to spend too much more time on these as I plan on revisiting these in the future to harmonize with what I have done with Source Sans (see: http://blog.typekit.com/2014/07/09/source-sans-v2/)

@teotuominen

@pauldhunt I can push the files to you straight away If you want. Looking forward for more detailed feedback.

@pauldhunt

@teotuominen I’ve gone ahead and compiled a set of beta fonts that can be found in the Releases area. I’ll be looking over these with the rest of my design team next Wednesday and will try to do some other looking at the files between now and then. So far things are looking very good, I think it will take me a bit of time to start noticing things that should be improved. Have a look yourself and let me know if you notice any things.
Oh I should say that going forward I’ll probably have you focus less on the diacritics as they will likely be updated in line with what I’ve done for Source Sans. But, if you want, I can maybe drop some updated diacritics in the sources before I have you get going on them again. I might do that anyway...

@pauldhunt

I posted an update, version 1.002, to the compiled beta fonts with larger diacritical shapes.

@teotuominen

@pauldhunt glad to hear that things are looking good to you. Curious to see how the beta fonts look at this point.

From your earlier message I understood that further work on the diagritics is not so essential at this point. So I'll not focus my attention to those.

Really looking forward to your feedback after the review on Wednesday.

@pauldhunt

@teotuominen you can download the fonts by following the link in the message just previous to your last one.

@teotuominen

@pauldhunt one thing that jumps up from the instances is the top "terminal", or curve of rounded caps such as C and G. In the bold master the curving of the shape is quite abrupt, while in the light it's more gentle. Perhaps the shape would feel more controlled if we'd open up the top part in the bold master to make the curve easier. This way the shape would relate more to the lowercase, where the curvature is more gentle throughout.

The J has a similar issue, where the bottom part curves too much in my opinion.

The S on the other hand is different because the stroke endings don't curve as much. I would unify the stroke endings more in these letters.

screen shot 2014-07-22 at 13 11 03
screen shot 2014-07-22 at 13 08 46
screen shot 2014-07-22 at 13 09 04
screen shot 2014-07-22 at 13 09 44

@pauldhunt

@teotuominen we went over the fonts today in our design review meeting and here is the main feedback:

Overall

  • The color seems to be a good contrast to the upright weights (slightly lighter). This will probably be less noticeable on screen than in high-res print.
  • The quality of the rounds seems to be better in the lower case than in the capitals and numbers. The letters BCDGOPQRS need to be more harmonious in their shapes and have a more consistent rhythm. You may benefit from looking at the same letters in Source Sans Pro (SSP) italics.
  • The treatment of the exit strokes (particularly on rounds) can be treated in a more neutral way. As it is, some flaring/tapering is occurring that seems to be an artifact of the mechanical sloping process. Again look at SSP italics for reference.
  • The numerals have an inconsistent rhythm: 0 is wobbly, 2/3/5 feel over-slanted, the curves on 6/8/9 are lumpy. When drawing these do so in the context of 1 and 4 and capital letters to harmonize the apparent slant and rhythm. In fact, it may be easier in some cases to use the outlines of SSP italics and adjust the width – just an idea.

Specifics

  • D (uppercase) Check that there isn’t a heavy spot in the 5-6 o’clock portion of the bowl.
  • Q (uppercase) The tail can be made a bit longer, particularly in the ExtraLight (EL) master.
  • U (uppercase) Check that the curve is not too flat in the 5-6 o’clock portion of the glyph shape.
  • e (lowercase) the shape feels over-slanted. Try making a more natural letter shape.
  • i & l (lowercase) the top serif combined with the tail make these forms feel like they are leaning more left than other lowercase forms (even though they are mathematically the same slant). Perhaps extending the top serif to the right, allowing it to push the angle of the main stroke steeper will rectify this illusion. In any case, the main stroke must be made steeper somehow.
  • r (lowercase) is too wide (by ~20 units) and the joining stroke feels heavy. Making the join deeper/lighter can ameliorate this latter issue.
  • x (lowercase) the thick feels too thick and the thin too thin. The offset of the strokes can be improved in the EL master.
  • y (lowercase) as with x, mind the weighting of diagonal stems. The continuous stroke on the right seems to be heavier below the point where the two strokes join. The tail feels a bit flat.
  • , (comma) and related shapes (quote marks) have become somewhat flat on the right hand side in the sloping process. Please see if you cannot restore some of the roundness to these forms. The tails can have have more of a sweeping gestural motion.

Technical

  • There were a good number of glyphs whose widths ended up being off by 1-2 units (either wider or narrower). Please be mindful to retain the 600 unit width of all glyphs going forward.

I think this is it for now. Please let me know if you have questions or need clarification on this feedback.

@pauldhunt

@teotuominen in response to your comment above about the round shapes of C, G, J, S (&c), when I approached drawing the italics for SSP, I began by sloping the upright forms by half (~6 degrees) and then rotating by half (another ~6 degrees). This gave me a fairly good ‘skeleton’ of the shape I wanted to achieve. I could then finesse the outlines to give them a more graceful form. This approach helped me, perhaps you can also try it?

@teotuominen

@pauldhunt Thanks for the feedback, all the improvements you wrote seem clear. I'll get right on it.

@pauldhunt

This is a feedback question for everyone:
Would you prefer upright parens (), brackets [], and braces {} for coding applications? I’ve been using the current version of the italics as my default code font now for the past week or so and I think that I might actually prefer these glyphs in question to be upright by default. I was wondering if any of you had any preferences regarding this.

@MoreAxes

Why not allow everyone to choose individually by making two versions of the italics?

@miguelsousa
Adobe Fonts member

@MoreAxes are you or anyone else going to sign up for maintaining one of the versions? Because we surely don't have the bandwidth to do it.

@MoreAxes

I didn't realize it involved such a commitment. Nevermind then.

@fredleblanc

I'd rather that they slant nicely along with the rest of the set, but that's mostly because I personally don't use italics as a base font for coding. I tend to put all of my comments in italics, and those are generally more sentence-like than code-like (although parenthesis are quite likely to appear here and there). Because of this, I'd rather those characters fit in more with the flow of my words.

@pauldhunt

@MoreAxes if in deed, I do decide to go with upright defaults for the delimiters mentioned, I will likely keep the sloped versions as well, but place them in a stylistic set, but this means the glyphs will be available to typographic applications (such as InDesign), but not usually to coding applications (unless by some miracle they enable rich OpenType support).

@dupuy

While making the italic paren/brace/brackets (more) upright would be nice, I would prefer them to be easily distinguishable from the non-italic versions. If they are not, you can end up with situations where manually styled (i.e. not by virtue of being a comment or whatever) text has italics applied (or not) when the opposite was intended, and when that text is displayed in another font (Source Code Pro might not be available) it ends up looking odd.

This kind of thing already happens with other punctuation, like period and comma, but as those are nearly indistinguishable in every font, it is not such an issue.

One possibility might be to make the italic versions narrower (with more space on the "inside" where the adjacent glyph is less likely to be a space) and/or putting more curviness into the {} brackets (although at small sizes it could be hard to see the curviness).

@ithinkihaveacat

Can someone post in context source code examples (or links to examples) of the alternatives here?

@ndr-qef

I can't help but think that mixed-in uprights would tend to look awkward; of course, I might be wrong.

Perhaps —if you have time— you could offer us an image comparison, or simply a screenshot? (A few particularly hazardous cases could be found in strings like (fn []), function(i), or simply [i].)

As for stylistic alts, I would argue that including them would be a very good idea: an increasing number of editors is based on Chromium shells which support rich OTF features, e.g. Brackets by Adobe itself, Atom by GitHub, LightTable…

Regardless of my opinion, you might want to consider that defaulting to upright parens/brackets/braces would be rather unusual. Are there popular monospace fonts which are known to use upright parentheticals in their Italic or Oblique styles?

@pauldhunt

I guess I should state my own biases here.

Firstly, I probably do not fully understand what the use case for coding italics is as all of environments where I use a coding font typically do not use italics. Are there any scenarios where it would be important to distinguish between upright and italic versions of ()[]{}?

Secondly, as a typographer and type designer, sloped versions of these glyphs in particular just feel wrong on a gut level probably based both on a bit of typography indoctrination as well as the sloped shapes just looking odd to me visually. So if the answer to the question above (in this post) is ‘no’, I’m not sure I can appreciate any other reason (besides taste) as for why these glyphs should not be upright.

@TylerEich

@pauldhunt As a web developer, I frequently write JavaScript and browse source files documentation from other repos on GitHub. One logical reason for sloping all italic characters is found in automatic documentation generators.

If you browse the source code of the Angular.js repo (for example, this file), you'll notice the format of the comments includes curly braces and parentheses. If all characters in these comments were not slanted, it would be easier (if only slightly) to mistake them for functional JavaScript.

@dupuy

Not all uses of a monospaced font involve coding - technical documentation also uses monospace fonts to indicate terminal input or output, or to highlight certain text like filenames. In these cases, certain parts of the text may be variable (the specific text can be changed and does not need to be exactly as given). In cases like these, metasyntactic variables like "foo" and "bar" may be used - but they are rather nerdy and may be inappropriate. Alternately, the part of the input that is variable may be rendered in italics to indicate that it is something that could be modified. While it may be unlikely that parentheses, braces, or brackets would be used in the variable text, it is still important that they are clearly one or the other.

A not too farfetched example might be a shell command where the variable part is given as a shell variable ${some_var} to emphasize its variability, and you want to visually distinguish this from the syntactic use of brackets to group statements, e.g. test -f ${some_file} && { cat ${some_file}; rm ${some_file}; }.

@ndr-qef

Within editors, italics are most commonly used to style comments; JetBrains IDEs are one such case, as previously mentioned in this thread. Additionally, there are suites and applications which sprinkle italic on certain syntax tokens, e.g. Visual Studio and Sublime Text.

However, as other commenters remarked, monospace fonts are also used in technical documentation and other similarly demanding text, where style may be used to convey meaning and ambiguity would be best avoided.

Ultimately, I would be interested to see upright parens/brackets/braces included in Source Code Pro as a design decision informed by the creator's typographic taste, provided that counter-arguments are given adequate consideration.

@castillar
@teotuominen

Updates to the rounded capitals and lining figures. I've been working on getting the shapes of Source Code Pro to relate more closely to those of Source Sans Pro, as well as fixing other issues pointed out by @pauldhunt

Paul do you think the end strokes of S should curve in more, as in the letters C and G?

sourcecode
sourcecode2

@pauldhunt

@teotuominen I think that the S’s look pretty good as you have drawn them. The zeros maybe look a bit over-rotated and pinched at the top/bottom. The light 8 looks like it is being pulled apart horizontally. The heavy G looks like it does not have the same amount of rotation as C and O. The light G looks like the bottom overshoot is pulling to the left and could be a nicer, more even rounding here. Just a few thoughts...

@miguelsousa
Adobe Fonts member

I wanted everyone to be aware that this repository has been relocated to https://github.com/adobe-fonts/source-code-pro . You may need to update the URLs you're using.

@teotuominen

@miguelsousa Should I update that new URL in my master branch?

@miguelsousa
Adobe Fonts member

@teotuominen yes. Go to Repository Settings on SourceTree and change the URL there. You won't need to do anything to the URL of your fork.

@acusti

@pauldhunt Perhaps also as a result of the repo owner name change, the link to the releases and compiled beta versions of the italics no longer point to any downloadable OTFs. I tried to use the AFDKO plus the build.sh script from v1.002 and 1.003 to build the fonts but no 🍀. Do you know how I can access the compiled set of beta fonts?

Edit: I also tried running makeotf -r from within the directories for each italic style as per the instructions to no avail (makeotf [Error] Could not find any of the default input font file '['font.ufo', 'font.pfa', 'font.ps', 'font.txt']'.).

@pauldhunt

@acusti you’ll have to give me some time to look into this. currently i’m head down on several other projects, so i can’t say when i’ll get a chance to get to this, but will keep you posted.

@miguelsousa
Adobe Fonts member

@acusti I've updated the links. Please give it another try.

@teotuominen

Updates to round caps, lining and oldstyle figures, some problematic lowercase characters and I also rounded the right side of the comma.

@pauldhunt I now feel that the 4 in SCP is too slanted, though I didn't touch it from the version before. What do you think?

sourcecode1308
sourcecode13082
sourcecode13083
sourcecode13084

@pauldhunt

@teotuominen this is all looking pretty good, of course it will be nice to have the updated sources so that we can look at these things in greater context.

@teotuominen

@pauldhunt I'll push the updated files to you this week

@acusti

The specimens are looking great! And thanks for the update, @miguelsousa, the compiled font downloads in releases work again.

The more oval (less round) dot in the heaviest 0 helps make the character look less convincingly like a logogram of an eye stood upright and I think gives more balance to the negative space around it. At the same time, the dot now looks a bit lumpy to me, a bit Totoro-like, but I think that’s going to be hard to avoid.

Thanks again to all for the hard work. I’ve already switched to using Source Code Pro with the beta italics in my editor and it is a highly readable, luxuriously spaced joy. Non-code content in particular, like code comments, copy in HTML files, language strings, etc. is now easy and a real pleasure to read.

@sinondo

First of all, thank you for making the one of the best fonts for us. I found the shape of 'g' is different between the normal one and the italic one, will it be the same in the future release?

@frankrolf
Adobe Fonts member
@teotuominen

@pauldhunt I just pushed the latest versions of the Italic masters to Git and made a pull request. Could you please go though them and let me know if you want any changes done.

@teotuominen

@pauldhunt I made a pull request for the final italic files today.

@squarology

The new italics are looking really nice :)

@rodrigoelp

Hey guys, can you run the build script for the italics branch? is failing on my machine...

@miguelsousa
Adobe Fonts member

@rodrigoelp I see that it's failing on the uprights. The build script has not been updated to include the italics. I'll check to see if it's an easy fix; if so I'll post an update, otherwise you'll have to wait until the work is completed.

@miguelsousa
Adobe Fonts member

@rodrigoelp the italic branch is missing many required files, so the fonts cannot be built at this time. There are beta builds available in the Release area.

@vikky49

The beta releases are working great but any idea when the actual versions are coming out ? Just being curious here ..

@pauldhunt
@Melindrea

Have a good vacation, you've done an awesome job (all of you), and looking forward to the end result.

It's also been very nice to follow how fonts grow, I think a lot of people (me included) have gained new appreciation for it.

@pauldhunt

@Melindrea i should hope so! i think this is part of the reason we wanted to do the development of the italics ‘in the open’ like this.

@acusti

@Melindrea @pauldhunt Agreed. Even if I don’t have a new appreciation for it, I certainly have a more specific, concrete, and 💪 appreciation.

@AlanBreck

I'm super excited about having italics for Source Code Pro. Thank you for all of the hard (really good) work!

@kirang89

I've just installed the italic font and works well (so far) for me. Thanks for this!

@loadedsith

+1 for davidpmccormick's 1.002-it branch. Using it in Textmate; Looking good!

@pauldhunt

Italics will be part of the next release.

@darrenhaken

When will the next release be available? This would be awesome 👍

@pauldhunt
@mttrs

Looking forward to the Italic shape this year!

@pauldhunt

It’s been a year since Teo started on the italics, and I am now putting the finishing touches on the next version of the family. I expect that the next release of the family will happen sometime in July. Thank you everyone for being patient, I hope that the wait will have been worth it.

@acusti

Woooooooooo! Like 🎄 in June!

@pauldhunt

more like July. 😁

@pauldhunt pauldhunt added the fixed label Jun 5, 2015
@Melindrea

From what I've seen (I'm using a beta version in Mac Scrivener) it is gorgeous =) Thank you so much!

@yoshuawuyts

@pauldhunt amazing! 🎉 Will it by any chance also be released on google fonts?

@pauldhunt
@rayshan

👍 it's the only thing preventing me from switching to source code pro full time. Thanks for the hard work!

@pauldhunt pauldhunt closed this Jul 15, 2015
@Francisc

Closed? Hm, guess this means Italics have landed!
celebration

@miguelsousa
Adobe Fonts member

@Francisc pretty much. The official release is on Friday, but you can already find the fonts in the release branch.

@darrenhaken
@Francisc

That's so awesome, thanks Miguel.

@Melindrea

So glad about this, thanks for making it happen =)

@joaoevangelista

Wow! My eyes thanks you guys!

@Francisc

Look at all the italics!!!
joy

@mretondo
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment