Adding bold to font in XXP4

[BQ]

Why can't you add bold to any font in XXP4? I was able to do it in XXP3.0.2.

I also have .xar files that were created with bold font in 3.0.2 and I now get error message when I open them in XXP4

[ss-kalm]

You can add bold to a font, but only to a font that has a BOLD variant. Xara no longer artificially synthesizes either Bold or italic.

[angelize]

You can make any font appear bold by adding an outline. right click on the color line then use the drop down box at the top to set the size.

[Daniel]

I think that this change of direction for version 4 is a massive mistake.

In all of Xtreme's previous upgrades, users have been confident that newer versions of Xtreme have been able to open all files created in older versions.

Now that synthesised bold/italic fonts have been removed, the integrity of old artwork is lost.

For example, I hold .xar files of clients' business cards - each time a new member of staff is recruited, I open up the old artwork, change the name/contact details, and send off a PDF for printing. All of the cards are identical because I use the same base file - but now v4 prevents me from doing that:

http://diniel.com/forums/boldinv3.png

http://diniel.com/forums/noboldinv4.png

When I originally raised this in the Xara Xtreme Pro Version 4 - Issue List thread, Martin the Xara text handling coder said that it was a conscious decision to remove synthesised bold text because he didn't think it worked very well and that it couldn't be exported to a PDF anyway.

I don't buy that. While I bought upgrades for both Xtreme 4 and Xtreme Pro 4 immediately on release and before even downloading them, I see this backwards step of removing an important feature as a deal breaker and am virtually forced into sticking with v3.2.

http://diniel.com/forums/boldopenerror.png

Sure, the above error message on opening files created with pre 4.0 releases tells me that I need to substitute fonts, but I need the resulting output to be identical to that which I produced in the past! If I had just v4, how would I even know how bold a synthesised bold font was - even if it were possible to find a match in a different font?

Martin's nannying of me to make sure that I don't use features that PDF exports can't support doesn't make sense: v3.2 had a perfectly good warning on export to PDF which tells me that the synthesised bold font can't be exported...

http://diniel.com/forums/pdfgenerror.png

...that works for everyone! Easily fixed if the target is a PDF: convert the offending synthesised bold text to editable shapes. Not everything is exported to PDF from Xtreme though - much is exported as bitmaps for webpages, or as webpage design mockups: in the bitmap exports, the synthesised bold exports just fine.

Tahoma is a fairly standard web font, and while it doesn't have an italic variant, if you apply italics to it on a webpage, all three major PC browsers show it. Xtreme used to - but now it can't. That is a step backwards - and now that old .xar files can no longer be opened, it's a badly planned step backwards.

[handrawn]

Got a lot of sympathy with Daniel's point of view.

I am one of those who exports for print in bitmap format [mostly] and I will miss the synthesised fonts they were very useful - at least to me as an 'artist' rather than a 'designer'.
And pdf is not an export format for web? - Daniel had a good point in the other thread - this has not been answered as far as I can see? - are we being led by the nose here?

Its not going to cause me as much pain because I already hop between versions - because of other changes - but it is the first [for me] very positive downside to what is otherwise an excellent upgrade.

I understand xara's reasons for the change [I think] - still features have been removed and replaced before now - eg pantone color palettes removed in original xtreme version[s], since replaced - may be a case for replacing the synthesised font as an option?

[angelize]

On the other side, I'm happy that Xara removed the synthesized bold feature.

I have to send files to a printer on a regular basis and the printer requires PDF files. I find it much easier in version 4 without synthesized bold fonts. There is less type that needs to be converted to shapes, resulting in much smaller files.

If I need to make a font bold that doesn't have a bold variant I simply add an outline.

[handrawn]

sorry not really with that first bit

there was never any compulsion to use the synthesised variants - or am I misreading

with you on the outlining though - that can be useful

[angelize]

My husband and I work together on a weekly publication, and he has a habit of just clicking the bold button when he's laying out advertisements Then the ads are put on to a multi page double spread document along with the rest of the content.

When it comes time to make the pdf to send to the printer it can be chock full of text that would need to be either changed or converted to shapes.

with v.4 he has to use outlines so I'm happy

[Albacore]

You should be really happy that Xara has for the first time a good font engine instead of the mickey mouse one that we had in the past.

Look what happened when you tried to import a PDF file with the text still editable. What did you! sometimes numbers, sometimes symbols and the text scattered across the page. Now you still might get an error message that X font is not installed in you machine at least you now have the chance to change and yes maybe the format might still be off but at least now you have the chance of getting back. Now the one using Tiff as an export to print as suggested you have the outline and the opportunity to alter the kerning to get the effect that you want.

[Charles Moir]

Yes is was a deliberate decision to remove this feature, or rather I should say to fix a serious problem.

a) You guys are not on the receiving end of the complaints we get about print jobs that go wrong, and that can be very, very expensive.

b) Synthesized fonts are fake. They are artificial, computer generated, and if you're a font designer, they are an aberration, a distortion of the font designers art. As graphic artists you should respect that.

c) The industry standard uses the same rules - to disallow fake, synthesized fonts. Adobe set the precedent, some say define, the rules in this respect. We try to work with, not against industry standards.

d) You can simulate the old behavior, i.e. work-around it by slanting fonts or emboldening by adding an outline. Yes it looks ugly, particularly slanted fonts, but that the exact point. It's not totally easy to do this (like presing a button), but that's a good thing.

e) The font code was rotten, a mess that needed cleaning up (partly as a result of trying to cope with the complexities of synthesized fonts). So the font engine has had a clean out, that has improved reliability and allowed us more easily add new things such as the the liquid text flow features, and with more to come in future releases.

Whenever I see slanted fonts being used, it's not just ugly, but embarrassing if that has been created in Xara software, because any professional can spot this a mile off, and is a clear sign of amateurs at work.

So yes, it means old documents might look different under v4, but then again if you ever print or distribute them, they will look different under v3. And, like it or not, PDF is the industry standard print format now, as well as industry standard distribution format for WYSIWYG documents on the web, email and all electronic forms.

The old system gave a warning, but that was not a solution. It didn't help people fix the issues. The regular complaint was, 'why do you allow me to make a 'illegal' font that I can't print' and 'it should be WYSIWYG'. Well under v3 and earlier it wasn't WYSIWYG, and so for that reason, and those given above, the decision was made to change, to 'fix' the behavior.

So actually the decision was relatively simple. Some may not like it. Many did not like the way it was before, and will prefer the new system. I believe it was the right decision.