Size differences between fonts.google.com version

[m4rc1e]

left: this repo | right: fonts.google.com version

Seems the upms are different, this repo 1240 | fonts.google.com 2048

I think we need to retain the same scale for the fonts.google.com version, even if its an error. Users will now be used to this scale. I suggest we add a gen_gf_version.py script so we can create a set fonts for gf which keeps the scaling.

This came about whilst trying to solve, google/fonts#7

cc @davelab6

[davelab6]

I'm ok with a new upm if it improves the fonts in some way What is the thinking behind the new upm?

[clauseggers]

I don’t remember why the UPM has changed, but it was probably done to comply to webfont compatible vertical metrics. I feel we had a discussion about Playfair vertical metrics before, and this was the outcome.

[m4rc1e]

Solved, a script to generate the GF version has been included in the sources dir.

[RuixiZhang42]

@clauseggers Hi Claus! I was wondering if the letterforms were actually designed at 1000 UPMs. When using the fonts from this repo, I found the font size “appeared” way too small. For example, the cap height, based on 1240 UPMs, is merely 708/1240 = 57% in the regular weight. As a result, I had to use about 120% of the previous point size in my headings to get Playfair Display to “appear just big enough”.