Open davelab6 opened 6 years ago
The Waterfall's purpose is to allow visual inspection vertical metric shifts. I agree that on some views, the glyphs should not shift vertically. Imo, these views are all-glyphs and glyphs modified. This way we can see changes without vertical metric changes getting in the way.
Those views are not in the PR though?
On Dec 5, 2017 10:28 AM, "Marc Foley" notifications@github.com wrote:
The Waterfall's purpose is to allow visual inspection vertical metric shifts. I agree that on some views, the glyphs should not shift vertically. Imo, these views are all-glyphs and glyphs modified. This way we can see changes without vertical metric changes getting in the way.
— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/m4rc1e/gfregression/issues/14#issuecomment-349338574, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAP9y-K2VqdJWRj-Ovr9S_9A8vRxPfK1ks5s9WENgaJpZM4Q2d2Y .
It has modified glyphs :-)
I see your point though. You can't inspect for hinting jumps if the metrics differ.
I'll tweak the css tomorrow.
Is it perhaps possible from CSS to try to keep vertical metrics as samey as possible (e.g. use cell that takes its dimension from the vertically bigger glyph or use the vertical metrics from both fonts to compute the same cell size for both fonts) and mark the difference in a different way, e.g. by a bar to the side or a translucent fill of the differing vertical area?
Edit: also useful for spacing glyphs.
@m4rc1e the vertical shift in the images in https://github.com/google/fonts/pull/605#issuecomment-349324673 means the toggle is kinda useless