font not working

[swaggerstick]

I downloaded it for free online and put it in the windows font folder. I have a PC if that makes a difference.

http://www.fonts101.com/fonts/view/B...Black_Chancery

[tjl232]

it was working in 2.04

[mtylerfl]

I downloaded it for free online and put it in the windows font folder. I have a PC if that makes a difference.

http://www.fonts101.com/fonts/view/B...Black_Chancery

Thank you, but yes, we already know we can download the font for free (most of us here already have it). The question is...does it work for you in Designer 2.005?

EDIT: Swaggerstick PM'd me to confirm that the font does not work properly on his 2.005 Designer software either. Again, the preview Text window displays the font correctly, but the font on the actual board is different (i.e., a font substitution takes place). The programmers are aware and I believe they will be taking a close look at this.

[DocWheeler]

it was working in 2.04

Having written a bit of code, and designed a few applications in my time,
I know that a few tweaks or a "new and better way" can caused a world of grief.

Programmers usually do not like to test their code as it seems demeaning to
think that it could be problem-prone. Yeah, I've been there.

The problem with 2.005 is probably a "new and better" way of resolving a bit of
code that was felt to be less than optimal, or perhaps "inelegant". This is a normal
programming problem that requires good testing before implementation but often
does not happen because egos are involved.

It appears that the methods of programming are are not "modular" since small
changes seem to cause widespread problems and corrections sometimes take
too long to correct - just a feeling.

[mtylerfl]

Hi Ken,

I've never had the feeling that the CarveWright programmers' "ego" gets in the way of doing the best job they can. No doubt mistakes can happen, and when they are found, every effort is made to correct them ASAP.

However, I'm not even sure the font issue is a programming "mistake" or simply some weird anomaly with certain fonts and the way those are programmed - as far as I can tell, fonts that seem to have an issue are free fonts that god-only-knows who created them and whether they conform to normal commercial font standards.

With Designer version 2.xxx, we were presented with the ability to bend, warp, puff, and customize fonts in all sorts of creative new ways. Perhaps the "troublesome fonts" deviate from the norm enough so that they don't behave properly in that new code. Although the fonts in question seemed to work in prior versions and other software, we can't really conclude those fonts were "alright" from the beginning. This "new Designer environment" is rather unique, I think. We do know the vast majority of fonts seem to work just fine - at least I haven't had trouble with commercial fonts, but I haven't tried all 'zillion' of my fonts either. So, until the programmers themselves have had a chance to figure out the root cause, I think we'll just need to wait.

[FWMiller]

I work with software designers every day and they seem to be eager to have someone check their code for bugs. An engineer, hardware or software, who can't handle finding bugs (actually I mean unwanted features) in their design isn't an engineer for long.

[DocWheeler]

Hi Ken,

I've never had the feeling that the CarveWright programmers' "ego" gets in the way of doing the best job they can. No doubt mistakes can happen, and when they are found, every effort is made to correct them ASAP.

However, I'm not even sure the font issue is a programming "mistake" or simply some weird anomaly with certain fonts and the way those are programmed - as far as I can tell, fonts that seem to have an issue are free fonts that god-only-knows who created them and whether they conform to normal commercial font standards.

With Designer version 2.xxx, we were presented with the ability to bend, warp, puff, and customize fonts in all sorts of creative new ways. Perhaps the "troublesome fonts" deviate from the norm enough so that they don't behave properly in that new code. Although the fonts in question seemed to work in prior versions and other software, we can't really conclude those fonts were "alright" from the beginning. This "new Designer environment" is rather unique, I think. We do know the vast majority of fonts seem to work just fine - at least I haven't had trouble with commercial fonts, but I haven't tried all 'zillion' of my fonts either. So, until the programmers themselves have had a chance to figure out the root cause, I think we'll just need to wait.

Michael,

My post was not intended as a criticism of the programmers at LHR.
It was just a comment about what I have experienced in the industry.
Not finger pointing, just explaining how most programmers I've known feel.

From the post by Mark, I believe, he indicated that a new routine examines
the font name for particular words in making decisions about how to proceed.
This change seems to be the cause of the current problem.
My criticism would be the all to common lack of testing the changes,
something I have done myself - it will bite you in the butt every time!

[SteveNelson46]

I work with software designers every day and they seem to be eager to have someone check their code for bugs. An engineer, hardware or software, who can't handle finding bugs (actually I mean unwanted features) in their design isn't an engineer for long.

As an ex-programmer and manager I total agree. Most programmers (or any employees for that matter) who actively work toward improving their skills and the work they produce are the ones that last. I mostly worked in an academic environment where there is a great amount of latitude in employee time management and allowing them to correct not only their own mistakes but, flaws in the original planning leading to problems that were unforeseen at the beginning. With a commercial business for profit this paradigm sort of fades when the marketing department gets involved and they start to realize how much profit is lost over time. So, when the programmers get to the testing phase the marketing department is eager to release, even with known programming flaws. In my way of thinking, it's totally unacceptable to ignore these known flaws in subsequent program updates and/or releases.

[DocWheeler]

It seems that we are discussing two different topics concerning programmers.
My statement about programmers not liking to test their own code is
different than programmers wanting someone else to test the programs.

Seems that I would have been better off not talking about my experiences
since interpretations of what I was saying were all over the place.

[mtylerfl]

It seems that we are discussing two different topics concerning programmers.
My statement about programmers not liking to test their own code is
different than programmers wanting someone else to test the programs.

Seems that I would have been better off not talking about my experiences
since interpretations of what I was saying were all over the place.

Hi Ken,

It really doesn't matter either way. No problem expressing your personal experiences, so please don't feel badly about it. It doesn't have much to do with the real issue at hand, but made for interesting reading anyway!