[] looks like a box in Ubuntu font

In times gone by, the similiarity of "[]" to a box has actually been exploited to advantage!

Luke: how would you prefer to see it rendered? The three options are probably:

  a. to change the spacing of those two glyph entries font-wide
  b. to kern just the case of [ immediately followed by ] to add a bit of space
  c. to leave as is

The sequence of [] does come up in programming code, and so in the Ubuntu Monospace version will be much more visually separated.

If the spacing of the 'open' side of the brackets is made wider (Option 1),
the effect would require kerning for nearly all glyphs next to the brackets
to keep the spacing balanced in normal text. If closeness of these glyphs is
a problem then a kern pair (Option 2) to seperate them further would be the
most effective way to give them more space.

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Paul Sladen <email address hidden> wrote:

> In times gone by, the similiarity of "[]" to a box has actually been
> exploited to advantage!
>
> Luke: how would you prefer to see it rendered? The three options are
> probably:
>
> a. to change the spacing of those two glyph entries font-wide
> b. to kern just the case of [ immediately followed by ] to add a bit of
> space
> c. to leave as is
>
> The sequence of [] does come up in programming code, and so in the
> Ubuntu Monospace version will be much more visually separated.
>
> ** Changed in: ubuntu-font-family
> Importance: Undecided => Low
>
> ** Changed in: ubuntu-font-family
> Status: New => Triaged
>
> ** Tags added: uff-kerning uff-punctuation
> ** Tags removed: brackets
>
> --
> [] looks like a box in Ubuntu font
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/671228
> You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
> Font Family Drivers, which is subscribed to Ubuntu Font Family.
>
> Status in Ubuntu Font Family: Triaged
>
> Bug description:
> Enter [] brackets in openoffice, change the font to Ubuntu, you'll notice
> it looks like a box, similar to a not-supported-character box.
>
>
>

A kern pair would do it for me, it still allows sequences such as [_] when people want to make a more boxy box using the typewriter method.

Kerned/spaced {}[](), based on present appearance of <>.

2010-12-14 (Paul Sladen) Ubuntu Font Family version 0.70

  Release notes 0.70:
  * (Design) Add Capitalised version of glyphs and kern. (Rg, It, Bd,
    BdIt) DM (LP: #676538, #677446)
  * (Design) Give acute and grave a slight upright move to more match
    the Hungarian double acute angle. (Rg, It, Bd, BdIt) (LP: #656647)
  * (Design) Shift Bold Italic accent glyphs to be consistent with the
    Italic. (BdIt only) DM (LP: #677449)
  * (Design) Check spacing and kerning of dcaron, lcaron and
    tcaron. (Rg, It, Bd, BdIt) (LP: #664722)
  * (Design) Add positive kerning to () {} [] to open out the
    combinations so they are less like a closed box. (Rg, It, Bd,
    BdIt) (LP: #671228)
  * (Design) Change design of acute.asc and check highest points (Bd
    and BdIt only) DM
  * (Production) Update <case> feature. DM (LP: #676538, #676539)
  * (Production) Remove Romanian locl feature. (Rg, It, Bd, BdIt)
    (LP: #635615)
  * (Production) Update Copyright information with new
    strings. "Copyright 2010 Canonical Ltd. Licensed under the Ubuntu
    Font Licence 1.0" Trademark string "Ubuntu and Canonical are
    registered trademarks of Canonical Ltd." (Rg, It, Bd, BdIt) DM
    (LP: #677450)
  * (Design) Check aligning of hyphen, math signs em, en, check braces
    and other brackets. 16/11 (LP: #676465)
  * (Production) Pixel per em indicator added at U+F000 (Rg, It, Bd,
    BdIt) (LP: #615787)
  * (Production) Version number indicator added at U+EFFD (Rg, It, Bd,
    BdIt) (LP: #640623)
  * (Production) fstype bit set to 0 - Editable (Rg, It, Bd, BdIt)
    (LP: #648406)

I am using version 0.70.1 from Arch linux AUR and I still see it in some cases.

* In Eclipse javadoc view the bold titles have the problem while the rest of the text is ok.
* LibreOffice Calc displays "squares", while Writeris ok.
* Firefox is ok.

See attached screenshot.

Perhaps we're looking at a hinting issue, or a case of OOo Calc ignoring kerning or positive kerning. Could you render the screenshot again, this time with the hinting debug character included:

  "[]<>{}()"

If this shows '88' then the manual hint programs included in the file are not being used; otherwise it should should the corresponding PPEM.

On my system there seems to be a strange problem: As I already told, I can confirm that bug. But I also have the impression, that my system somewhy does not the latest version of the font. Please see the screenshot made with OOo-Writer, Font rendering settings: subpixel-smoothing and full hinting.

I can choose between one of two Fonts “Ubuntu” and “UbuntuBeta”. Before adding the font from my PPA of the Font Interest Group I already had the font installed by the TTF-Files from font.ubuntu.com. I didn’t (and still don’t) know how to uninstall them, so I just installed the ubuntu-private-fonts package. Is my system really using the correct font?

The debug symbol  looks different when using UbuntuBeta. Any idea why?

adoa: thanks for sticking with investigating this. The screenshot shows that *neither* of two fonts rendered is from the latest version of the Ubuntu Font Family; one is (0.009) and one is missing the version glyph which means it is (0.69).

The package 'ttf-ubuntu-font-family' is designed to Conflict: with older packages and therefore cause their removal. Please could you post the output of:

  COLUMNS=200 dpkg -l | awk '/ubuntu-.*font/{print $2,$3}'

so that we can get an idea of which out-of-date packages you have installed. As hinted on:

  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-font-family/+bug/706520/comments/3

you may also have copies in ~/.fonts/ Please delete these two.

adoa: thanks for sticking with investigating this. The screenshot shows that *neither* of two fonts rendered is from the latest version of the Ubuntu Font Family; one is (0.009) and one is missing the version glyph which means it is (0.69).

The package 'ttf-ubuntu-font-family' is designed to Conflict: with older packages and therefore cause their removal. Please could you post the output of:

  COLUMNS=200 dpkg -l | awk '/ubuntu-.*font/{print $2,$3}'

so that we can get an idea of which out-of-date packages you have installed. As hinted on:

  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-font-family/+bug/706520/comments/3

you may also have copies in ~/.fonts/ Please delete these too.

   COLUMNS=200 dpkg -l | awk '/ubuntu-.*font/{print $2,$3}'
says
   ubuntu-private-fonts 0.1.10~ppa1

adoa: yup. That version is from August 2010.

  1. Please install 'ttf-ubuntu-font-family' from the Software Centre, or 'apt-get'
  2. Run the command above to ensure that it has been replaced.

After that, please run:

  3. fc-list | grep -i '^Ubuntu.*Beta'

to ensure that you have no UbuntuBeta files installed either.

Now there is this package:
  ttf-ubuntu-font-family 0.69+ufl-0ubuntu1
which came from the maverick repo.

Now I really am confused: Where do I get a repository or PPA, that
installs the version 0.70.1 without upgrading my entire system to natty?

I thought the PPA from the Ubuntu Font Family Interest Group on
Launchpad would do exactly that.

Shouldn't the information in the overview be updated if the Interest Group does not do what is being said there ...

The font update from the *-proposed repository solved this problem. See Bug #709980. The package should be accepted into *-updates and then it comes to everyone by system updates.