Ask a new question

Word 2016 is not working reliably with OpenType CFF fonts

The issue:

I have doing a number of tests to try to resolve a problem related to getting incorrect page numbers in index & ToC (described in detail in this thread). The workaround seemed to be related to OpenType TTF versus OpenType CFF type fonts. The test here clearly shows that there is something wrong with how Word 2016 is using the font information. I have always expected Word’s Print Layout and printed versions to reliably match fairly exactly, but now they clearly do not.

My question:

My tests below seem to show that Word 2016 is not working reliably with OpenType CFF fonts. If this is true, what font types can be used to ensure that the Print Layout and printed versions of a Word document match?

(And, more for other users, how can someone determine what the type is for a given font?)

My test procedure and results:

My document used a CFF-type font (Adobe Garamond Pro). When I used a TTF version of a Garamond face (AGaramond LT), the pages didn't look quite the same. Although I expected some differences due to how kerning and letter spacing would be handled, the line-spacing was noticeably different for the same point size.

To determine what line spacing adjustment would be needed to match the original document, I created a single-page Word document with the same content in columns of a table. This would allow me to compare the heights of the same content set in the two different fonts, and adjust the line spacing of the TTF font column to match the CFF font column. (File: AGP vs AG-LT fonts.docx; created with Office 365 Word version 1702 build 7870.2024)

  • Column 1: Adobe Garamond Pro 10pt font, with paragraph spacing = Single.
  • Column 2: AGaramond LT 10pt font, with paragraph spacing = Exactly 10pt.
  • Column 3: AGaramond LT 10pt font, with paragraph spacing = Single.

From this 18 KB Word document, I created 3 PDFs:

  • AGP vs AG-LT fonts Word SaveAsPDF.pdf (created via Save As in Word; 230 KB; line 1 in editor: %PDF-1.4)
  • AGP vs AG-LT fonts Print Word.pdf (created via printer=Microsoft Print to PDF; 3,332 KB; line 1 in editor: %PDF-1.7)
  • AGP vs AG-LT fonts Print Nitro.pdf (created via printer=Nitro PDF Creator 2; 206 KB; line 1 in editor: %PDF-1.4)

The following screen shot shows the document in Word’s Print Layout view next to the same document saved as a PDF in Word. In the PDF, column 1 is significantly different than Word’s “WYSIWYG” version, and now even flows over to a second page. As well, the other two columns also differ between the screen and PDF versions (line 57 in the 3rd column, and the bottoms of the boxes relative to the footer).

All 3 PDFs appear identical, and match the printout from my LaserJet printer. However, as can be seen below, the font properties are different for each PDF. The PDF created by Nitro Pro lists all of the fonts used, but neither of the other two PDFs include the Adobe Garamond Pro fonts by name. (Note: although the Word document does not have any Courier in it, other PDFs created by the “Nitro Pro Creator 2” printer driver also include this font in the PDF font properties.)

If anyone would like to examine the 18KB Word document (and any of the PDFs), please let me know.

Update — and possible explanation?

Something has changed in the Adobe Garamond Pro CFF fonts between March 22 when I captured the above screen shot and today. When I open the exact same document with the same version of Word this morning, the Print Layout now matches the PDFs and printed version.

The Adobe Garamond Pro fonts I'm using are synched fonts from Adobe's Typekit program. To address a different issue I was encountering, I had subscribed to the Typekit program to be able to rule out potential issues with the older versions I had purchased. The newer synched fonts made no difference, so I had assumed that the problem was in how Word was using what was presumably the same font hinting information.

My wife's computer does not have the synched fonts, so to test the possibility that the problem was with the fonts instead of Word, I installed the original purchased Adobe Garamond font set on her computer. I then opened the exact same document on her computer using her Word 365 v1701 build 7766.2060.

The layout matched what I saw last week: in Print Layout, the 1st column displayed as shown in the screen shot in my original post with a short 1st column, and a printout of it matched the PDFs with the 1st column flowing over to a 2nd page.

Moreover, the problem that had initiated my testing (incorrect page numbers being reported in a Word Index & ToC; here) now appears to be resolved too: the same document that had errors last week now does not.

I have put this 18KB Word document on a shared OneDrive folder if anyone would like to test it. Note that it is a uses an 8-column table: Adobe Garamond Pro is used in the first 2 columns, and AGaramond LT fonts in the rest. The issue really only shows with the first boxed column. If you do not have the AGP font installed, select the 2 columns that make up the first boxed set and change it to a different installed CFF font.

If I am correct in my conclusion that this is a font problem, you should see that the Print Layout and printed views are different for this 1st boxed column.

Was this reply helpful?

Sorry this didn't help.

Great! Thanks for your feedback.

How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback, it helps us improve the site.

How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback.

Cross-posted at: https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/office/en-US/4f8afe1f-6871-4b73-a6c3-2975e2dba7e2/word-2016-index-shows-incorrect-page-numbers-only-when-using-an-opentype-cff-font-in-a-large-complex?forum=word

and:

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/msoffice/forum/msoffice_word-mso_win10/word-2016-index-page-numbers-wrong-only-when-using/76d9b4c0-1a37-429e-9598-c42307393abd

For cross-posting etiquette, please read: http://www.excelguru.ca/content.php?184

Cheers
Paul Edstein
(Fmr MS MVP - Word)

Was this reply helpful?

Sorry this didn't help.

Great! Thanks for your feedback.

How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback, it helps us improve the site.

How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback.

Not sure how to interpret the cross posting notice here Paul... I had already read the post about cross-posting, so took extra care to connect the two quite different questions in two very different forums with the reasons why they are related. 

Was this reply helpful?

Sorry this didn't help.

Great! Thanks for your feedback.

How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback, it helps us improve the site.

How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback.

It's just an alert that you need to provide links to all cross-posts. Your first post only mentioned one of the threads you'd started on this topic. Providing all the links means anyone else considering responding can be aware of all that might have been said elsewhere (so they don't waste time reinventing the wheel).
Cheers
Paul Edstein
(Fmr MS MVP - Word)

Was this reply helpful?

Sorry this didn't help.

Great! Thanks for your feedback.

How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback, it helps us improve the site.

How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback.

 
 

Question Info

Last updated October 5, 2021 Views 1,973 Applies to: