Unchangeable font

[AlanHK]

Originally Posted by Sella174

The author/publisher of those e-books did not think those fonts were ugly, that's why they used and embedded them. And you did exactly what people are anyway doing, switching off those fonts.

I did say, "useless or ugly fonts". Mostly books produced by amateurs who probably didn't even notice they were embedding a font. Often pretty mediocre ones, no aesthetic or practical value.
If I notice any styles with a specific font defined I have a look at how and why they are applied. Sometimes for instance a font for "special" characters that might have been necessary in their document on their PC, ugly as it looks with the mismatched font, but knowing the symbol is part of all the built in fonts so the font and the span applying it can be deleted.


Rarely there are books with a nice font that someone did deliberately choose. I might keep them. Or ones with a more decorative font for headlines. Preferable to those who have a text image for all their chapter titles.

Originally Posted by Sella174

A fancy font works great when your reader reads by voicing each word by breaking it into syllables. It doesn't work if your reader reads whole words or groups of words through pattern recognition. In the latter case, fancy fonts slow down the reader, so it'll probably be switched off.

Don't know exactly what you mean by "fancy fonts", but of course never sensible to use decorative fonts for body text, for the reasons you give. I might use a "fancy font" for a few words, maybe titles or headlines, not for blocks of text. (Again, except when the publisher insists; and I don't use fancy fonts for body text in any format. 95% of the time I use Adobe Garamond for print.)

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AlanHK

(Again, except when the publisher insists; and I don't use fancy fonts for body text in any format. 95% of the time I use Adobe Garamond for print.)

Thing is, because you use Adobe Garamond in print, the publisher will use it in the eBook and that doesn't work for eInk because it's way too light.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Sella174

Sure, and what do people do? They switch off all those fancy author/publisher defined fonts because they want to read the text.

You don't know that. You know that's what YOU do, or perhaps, a few people with whom you've spoken. Obviously, that's not what everyone does, or even a majority. You can trust me on this--if people complained, or if Amazon saw, from the use data, that people were constantly turning fonts OFF, they'd just do away with them.

A big factor with fonts, especially the use of fancy fonts, is how people read. A fancy font works great when your reader reads by voicing each word by breaking it into syllables. It doesn't work if your reader reads whole words or groups of words through pattern recognition. In the latter case, fancy fonts slow down the reader, so it'll probably be switched off.

I agree with Alan's comment--what do you mean by "fancy fonts?" Decoratives, or god forfend, h/w or script fonts? Sure. But if you mean a fundamental font like Garamond, or Janson; Caslon or Bembo, etc., they're highly readable. (note to Wolfie: yes, if you embed AGaramond, in a MOBI, w/o knowing what you're doing, it's too light. It can, however, be done.)

For the author, if fancy fonts are essential for your book, then IMO you're better off using PDF - which nearly all reading devices and printers can render correctly.

Uh...yes, except, they aren't SOLD anyplace with any volume. What, you're regaling everyone with a "fancy font" to one of the very few places that sell them? I don't see that dog hunting, not at all.

Moreover, MOBI doesn't--or hasn't--kerned, period. Nor used ligs. Simple as that. I seriously doubt that Caecilia even has a kerning table. (Anyone know? I confess I've never looked into it. Wolfie, don't you have Caecilia in your collection?)

I don't know, as Alan said, what you mean by "fancy fonts," but unless body fonts are embedded INCORRECTLY by amateurs, ALL body fonts can be ignored and not used, in MOBI format, should the buyer/reader so wish. Thus, it's the best of both worlds--the publisher gets what s/he wants, and the reader gets what s/he wants.

Hitch

[AlanHK]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Thing is, because you use Adobe Garamond in print, the publisher will use it in the eBook and that doesn't work for eInk because it's way too light.

Seems fine on a 300 dpi PW3.
And many may be reading it on a tablet with higher dpi.
Anyway, you can override to Amazon Ember Bold if you prefer.

Print is the important product here, they sell a handful of ebooks in comparison. So I design for paper above all. But normally when I convert to ebooks I do not keep the font, and feel free to modify the layout otherwise, since I am quite aware that a good printing font is not the same as good screen font.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AlanHK

Seems fine on a 300 dpi PW3.
And many may be reading it on a tablet with higher dpi.
Anyway, you can override to Amazon Ember Bold if you prefer.

No, it does not seem fine on a PW3. It seems too light because it is too light. Ember Bold is no longer part of the 5.8.11 as you can increase the weight of the system fonts.

[AlanHK]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

No, it does not seem fine on a PW3. It seems too light because it is too light.

Please try to distinguish between facts and opinions.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Hitch

(note to Wolfie: yes, if you embed AGaramond, in a MOBI, w/o knowing what you're doing, it's too light. It can, however, be done.)

Um.. I thought you of all people would know you cannot embed a font in Mobi.

But yes, I agree 100% that Adobe Garamond is too light. It's too light for eInk and it's even too light for an iPad. What should be embedded is Adobe Garamond Semi-Bold. That would work and not be too light. But publishers don't get that what's on the printed page doesn't always work on electronic devices and you do need to make adjustments.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Um.. I thought you of all people would know you cannot embed a font in Mobi.

But yes, I agree 100% that Adobe Garamond is too light. It's too light for eInk and it's even too light for an iPad. What should be embedded is Adobe Garamond Semi-Bold. That would work and not be too light. But publishers don't get that what's on the printed page doesn't always work on electronic devices and you do need to make adjustments.

Wolfie:

STOP with the "MOBI" Bulls*t. That's what the goddamned "dual" file is CALLED. You don't like it, take it up with Amazon. Stop insisting that "MOBI" = KF7 and "KF8"="KF8". There is NO file format called "KF8." There is, however, a KF8 file format called MOBI.

ENOUGH.

Hitch

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AlanHK

Please try to distinguish between facts and opinions.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. I've seen it in person on a PW3.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Wolfie:

STOP with the "MOBI" Bulls*t. That's what the goddamned "dual" file is CALLED. You don't like it, take it up with Amazon. Stop insisting that "MOBI" = KF7 and "KF8"="KF8". There is NO file format called "KF8." There is, however, a KF8 file format called MOBI.

ENOUGH.

Hitch

No KF8? Then read this. https://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1000729511 There is no KF7. What you are calling KF8 is Mobi. The problem is that unless we say things correctly, they will get misconstrued.

Mobi = Mobipocket
Dual format Mobi = Mobi & KF8
KF8 = KF8

I don't want to argue. But if you do disagree with any of that, please point me where I am wrong.

Can you please tell Alan that he's wrong and Adobe Garamond (no semi-bold) is too light on a PW3?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

No KF8? Then read this. https://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1000729511 There is no KF7. What you are calling KF8 is Mobi. The problem is that unless we say things correctly, they will get misconstrued.

Mobi = Mobipocket
Dual format Mobi = Mobi & KF8
KF8 = KF8

I don't want to argue. But if you do disagree with any of that, please point me where I am wrong.

Fine. You show me a file with a .kf8 file extension, and I'll let this go. There is NO SUCH THING. In fact, Wolfie, I would argue that there is no MOBIpocket/prc format remaining, because it doesn't and cannot stand alone, not any longer. MOBI (KF7) was NEVER MOBI; it was .prc. Hell, I remember when purists would call it KF6, for a variety of reasons.

So: where's the file format called .kf8? Don't know about you, Wolfie, but I build files called .mobi. Period. Does it have KF7 and KF8 inside it? Yes. Those are TYPES of MOBI--not standalone file formats, in the scope of what's properly called a "format." A "format" of file is a file extension--not a conceptual or actual difference between TYPES of that format.

There are searchable PDFs, and the old-style image-only PDFs. Do you have two different names for those? There are 2007 docx files, 2010 docx files, 2013 and 2016. They are all different. YOu think those are all different "formats?" NO, they are not. They are all .docx files--with different and less/more advanced formatting features.

You are being obdurate. You're just doing it to be obdurate. I don't give a crap if Amazon refers to it as a "file format," because, in truth, it's not. Thee only "KF8" you get, when you crack open an AZW file is in the name of a folder. NOT a file format.

And unless and until Amazon decides to create an actual format, named ".kf8" as they have created ".kfx," I'm going to refer to it as MOBI, all pedantry aside.

Can you please tell Alan that he's wrong and Adobe Garamond (no semi-bold) is too light on a PW3?

No. We embed Garamond all the time. (At one time, we thought it was too light. We've altered WHICH font we embed.) But we know what we're doing.

Hitch

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Hitch

We embed Garamond all the time. (At one time, we thought it was too light. We've altered WHICH font we embed.) But we know what we're doing.

Hitch

Which version of Garamond do you embed that's not too light? Isis the semi-bold Adobe version or some other version?

[AlanHK]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. I've seen it in person on a PW3.

I said, more than once, that the only reason I used that font was that the publisher, the guy who pays me, asked me to do so. As the guy who did it before me had done.
I won't say that Garamond is an ideal choice. I do say however, that I am looking at it on my own Kindle now and suffering no pain.

I took you off my ignore list to see what you were saying in my thread, but that was a mistake that I will rectify now.

[AlanHK]

Originally Posted by Hitch

So: where's the file format called .kf8? Don't know about you, Wolfie, but I build files called .mobi.

This appears to be similar confusion of terms as with video files, between codecs, like X264, X265, xVid video, and containers, like MKV, MP4, AVI.

People may say they prefer MKV files because they are higher quality than AVI. And they think that because most AVI files are xVid, and most MKV files are x264 these days.
But it's quite valid to put xVid in an MKV or MP4 container if you want to, but that won't change the quality.

People who do know the difference between a codec and a container pull out their hair and explain it over and over. But it just goes over their heads.

Sometimes you just have to walk away.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AlanHK

I said, more than once, that the only reason I used that font was that the publisher, the guy who pays me, asked me to do so. As the guy who did it before me had done.
I won't say that Garamond is an ideal choice. I do say however, that I am looking at it on my own Kindle now and suffering no pain.

I took you off my ignore list to see what you were saying in my thread, but that was a mistake that I will rectify now.

Not all Garamonds are the same. (Believe me, I know.) Moreover, with a few clicks, you can CALL the Garamond from the firmware (if that's where it resides. I don't pretend to know that). Badda-bing, instant readable Garamond. You cannot, I feel, successfully embed Adobe Garamond--that's too light, oftentimes, on the older eInks. (It's fine it you are making FXL.)

It's all trial-and-error, when you're trying to dance on the edge of the knife--make (sometimes unreasonable) clients happy and keep Amazon from eating you for breakfast. We have a different mandate than most, due to being on the List; we're obligated to make books that, in the vernacular, "deliver a good reading experience to the customer." If I don't, If we don't, I risk everything. So, trust me, we don't embed too-light fonts.

Originally Posted by AlanHK

This appears to be similar confusion of terms as with video files, between codecs, like X264, X265, xVid video, and containers, like MKV, MP4, AVI.

People may say they prefer MKV files because they are higher quality than AVI. And they think that because most AVI files are xVid, and most MKV files are x264 these days.
But it's quite valid to put xVid in an MKV or MP4 container if you want to, but that won't change the quality.

People who do know the difference between a codec and a container pull out their hair and explain it over and over. But it just goes over their heads.

Sometimes you just have to walk away.

I freely admit that audio and video aren't my real area of expertise, but because we are on occasion required to embed same, in some of our multimedia books, I've had to learn the difference between codec and container. Not conversantly; but enough to say, "yup, that's that and this other thing is this." I try not to screw up the two. ;-)

And yes: the same thing is exactly true for "kf7" and "kf8." They're both carried in the SAME container. The container, to my way of thinking, is a MOBI file. Plain and simple. For a while there, sure, it was confusing--when KF7 was still commonplace, when you could relabel a kf7 .prc as .mobi (still can, BTW) and it would work at the KDP, and when the KF8 options came along. But now that the so-called "Dual MOBI" came along, for the love of heaven, arguing about what "mobi" is, is just...it's ridiculous. When Amazon puts out a FORMAT called .kf8, then I'll use that. But using that, when I am, in fact, talking about a MOBI built via KG/KP/whatever, which has not one file but three inside it, the source, the KF7/prc and the KF8/MOBI....no. Because I'm not building a KF8. I'm not building a KF7. I'm building...a MOBI file. Period, end statement, end of discussion.

/done on this particular topic now. Happy to contine to discuss fonts, as that's the thread.

Hitch