First of all, thank you very much for the article! Switching Shapes published on May 25th, 2021…
For the Alternate glyphs it suggest the exact opposite method for Rename Glyphs parameter mentioned on Alternating glyph shapes with multiple axes article (i.e., dollar=dollar.bold instead of dollar.bold=dollar). Two different approaches for the similar purposes, if I got it right… We were not supposed to use Remove Glyphs parameter there and we should use now, etc. This is true for G3, right?
And If that’s the case, maybe you may like to put cross references to the articles for clarification for the confused ones like me.
I also got confused on the first paragraph under “What to choose when: alternate glyphs or layers?” piece. Alternate layers aproach preferred there, but… does “having to go into the alternate layers of each glyph…” inconvenience belongs to the Alternate layers itself already?
Well, maybe I should read the articles again and learn the things properly
Thank you. And we don’t have to mark the .bold glyphs as non-export from the sidebar (or we can leave them as they are, if we already did — that doesn’t matter*), because now we use Remove Glyphs custom parameter to delete them from the exports, right?
The popup where you select what instance to display in the preview has a little eye symbol next to each instance. That controls the visibility in the ‘All instances’ more.
Thank you very much for your response.
But my question was about the context of this post.
I did replace the glyph with an alternative (RenameGlyph g=g.bold… for the heavy style). But the preview shows the original one, not the one I replaced it with.
Since the work on the fonts has just begun, it would be nice to see the result in the process, not just after exporting.
