I use it for all my internal memos / presentions as it seems to be the company standard font these days. -- Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 VW Golf GL Cabrio - Alfa 75 TS - Alfa 155 TS Lusso - COSOC KOTL BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
> > I use it for all my internal memos / presentions as it seems to be the > > company standard font these days.
> It is a snobbery thing. It is a Microsoft font. Therefore it is fair > game. > You could always say it was Tekto.
In my case, I don't give a damn who published it. I hate it with a passion, always have done. It's unprofessional, IMHO.
> Me, I never use Helvetica in case the ignorant mistake it for Arial
> pretentious? moi?
If you don't use Helvetica, what _do_ you use? - It's my font of choice usually. -- Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 VW Golf GL Cabrio - Alfa 75 TS - Alfa 155 TS Lusso - COSOC KOTL BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
> > > I use it for all my internal memos / presentions as it seems to be the > > > company standard font these days.
> > It is a snobbery thing. It is a Microsoft font. Therefore it is fair > > game. > > You could always say it was Tekto.
> In my case, I don't give a damn who published it. I hate it with a > passion, always have done. It's unprofessional, IMHO.
Yes.
> > Me, I never use Helvetica in case the ignorant mistake it for Arial
> > pretentious? moi?
> If you don't use Helvetica, what _do_ you use? - It's my font of choice > usually.
Ooh goody a font discussion! Much better than iTunes playlists..
Currently I'm on a Gill Sans kick if I want it formal looking. Otherwise its a tossup between Optima and Futura. I don't use sans fonts much, except for diagram labels and stuff.
I'm wedded to Adobe Garamond for serif body type. It is just too elegant not to use it. I use Poppl Laudatio variations for heads and similar in Word docs. Just enough to say I care about how it looks. It is a pity that Word's idea of typography is down there with ransom notes.
-- I thought I would be the last on earth to mangle my e-mail address. fsnospam$elliott$$
SteveH <st...@italiancar.co.uk> wrote: > Hmmmm. I tend to gravitate towards Sans Serif fonts as they're less > stuffy and formal, IMHO.
There have been studies about which I remember reading a long time ago (I can't quote them or give a url though) that showed that serifed fonts are easier and quicker to read. In blocks of text on the page (as opposed to large isolated words) I'd say from personal experience that that was true. Large blocks of 10 or 12 pt sanserif are almost impossible to read fluently on screen or page. -- Peter
Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > SteveH <st...@italiancar.co.uk> wrote:
> > Hmmmm. I tend to gravitate towards Sans Serif fonts as they're less > > stuffy and formal, IMHO.
> There have been studies about which I remember reading a long time ago > (I can't quote them or give a url though) that showed that serifed fonts > are easier and quicker to read. In blocks of text on the page (as > opposed to large isolated words) I'd say from personal experience that > that was true. Large blocks of 10 or 12 pt sanserif are almost > impossible to read fluently on screen or page.
It's accepted practice in web design to use sans serif because it displays cleaner on screen. Verdana for example was developed specifically for screen displays. This is historic as high resolution screens now render neater serifs. But Times New Roman still looks naff at large point sizes and I could never understand its use as a default font.
r@y <datas...@hotmail.com> wrote: > But Times New Roman still looks naff at large point sizes and I could > never understand its use as a default font.
What do you call 'large'? This isn't a challenge of any kind- it's a genuine question.
I look at the printed material around me, and all the 'reading' as opposed to 'displaying' text- I mean body as opposed to headline- is serifed and for very good reason. I take your point about screen rez, but on Macs for instance, since the first compact models with their relatively high-rez screens, I've always had a preference for serifed fonts. They are simply nicer to look at and easier to read.
As for New Times Roman, I've always found it over-stiff and cramped- much preferred Apple's old favourite Palatino. -- Peter
> It's accepted practice in web design to use sans serif because it > displays cleaner on screen. Verdana for example was developed > specifically for screen displays. This is historic as high resolution > screens now render neater serifs.
And we know everyone's views on Verdana, ISTR. :-)
> But Times New Roman still looks naff at large point sizes and I could > never understand its use as a default font.
Why is it so naff? I guess because it's so small and cramped, and just screeches 'the early days of the homepage'. Like PeterC, I use Palatino.
Bella Jones <m...@privacy.net> wrote: > > But Times New Roman still looks naff at large point sizes and I could > > never understand its use as a default font.
> Why is it so naff? I guess because it's so small and cramped, and just > screeches 'the early days of the homepage'. Like PeterC, I use Palatino.
For me the comparison is in the treatment of loops; they are much more generous and outgoing (really sharp, technical analysis here, of course you're amused by its presumption) than they are in Times New Roman. But there is a real difference, and Palatino feels much better as a result. -- Peter
> > If you don't use Helvetica, what _do_ you use? - It's my font of choice > > usually. > Ooh goody a font discussion! Much better than iTunes playlists..
> Currently I'm on a Gill Sans kick if I want it formal looking. > Otherwise its a tossup between Optima and Futura. I don't use sans > fonts much, except for diagram labels and stuff.
I find Arial/Helvetica a bit cramped and mean, as well as Times. Just did a test in TextEdit, (oh, the displacement activity), and oddly, they were identical. 'Helvetica CE' looked different though.
> I'm wedded to Adobe Garamond for serif body type. It is just too > elegant not to use it.
Actually, that is a *really* nice font. But are there any problems using it in Word? Not sure what I mean by that, except that it's not in everybody's font book/palette. I had to dig it out of an InDesign 'Goodies' folder.
>I use Poppl Laudatio variations for heads and > similar in Word docs. Just enough to say I care about how it looks. It > is a pity that Word's idea of typography is down there with ransom > notes.
Found that in my machine, but it's 'LWFN' and won't open in Font Book.
In article <1ggr6zd.1no5vyrdzggieN%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>, pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
> For me the comparison is in the treatment of loops; they are much more > generous and outgoing (really sharp, technical analysis here, of course > you're amused by its presumption)
Been years since I read Thurber; must blow the cobwebs off my copy of "Best of.."
> than they are in Times New Roman. But > there is a real difference, and Palatino feels much better as a result.
Palatino can be a little quirky (esp the capital "P") for setting large blocks of text. There is no one right font, of course. I like Alison Black's "Typefaces for desktop publishing: a user guide" for a general discussion of the issues; it's aimed at the layman rather than people in the trade.
Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > r@y <datas...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > But Times New Roman still looks naff at large point sizes and I could > > never understand its use as a default font.
> What do you call 'large'? This isn't a challenge of any kind- it's a > genuine question.
On screen not on the printed page, although higher resolution screens make it better. I suppose it's a matter of personal taste, I just don't like it on screen, at larger point sizes the serifs start to look rough to me. There are better serif alternatives as you have pointed out.
> > I'm wedded to Adobe Garamond for serif body type. It is just too > > elegant not to use it.
> Actually, that is a *really* nice font. But are there any problems using > it in Word? Not sure what I mean by that, except that it's not in > everybody's font book/palette. I had to dig it out of an InDesign > 'Goodies' folder.
I think there is a Garamond in the Office distro. Not Adobe's version. Adobe has two, the Other is Adobe Garamond Pro, which is an Open Type Font. OTF is supposed to play really well with Unicode, so I am changing all my Word body styles to use Pro so that I am ready for Word 2004 once I see how any early teething troubles with it pan out for others.
Other than that, AGaramond has been as good as any other font in Word v.X. Of course, while collaborating with users on the dark side, I have to fall back to the ghastlies they have available. I don't know anyone who uses a PC that cares about typography; they are all past help.
Word is pretty bloody awful in the typography department. Its H&J is really wierd. It arbitrarily changes leading. It gets interword space in comments totally screwed, even in TNR. It won't hang punctuation, and has a mind of its own when deciding whether to inhibit space before on column tops and page tops.
> >I use Poppl Laudatio variations for heads and > > similar in Word docs. Just enough to say I care about how it looks. It > > is a pity that Word's idea of typography is down there with ransom > > notes.
> Found that in my machine, but it's 'LWFN' and won't open in Font Book.
It is here too, but it does show up. Maybe you are missing the suitcase file for it? (I'm outta my depth here. If it works, its perfect. If it doesn't, I bin it)
-- I thought I would be the last on earth to mangle my e-mail address. fsnospam$elliott$$
> There have been studies about which I remember reading a long time > ago (I can't quote them or give a url though) that showed that > serifed fonts are easier and quicker to read. In blocks of text on > the page (as opposed to large isolated words) I'd say from personal > experience that that was true.
Maybe. I tested this once by printing the same block of justified text in several different typefaces and seeing how far away I could read it. Palatino won by a long way.
But: I go to folk singing sessions, where it's usual for people to bring folders with the texts of things they haven't yet memorized. These are left-justified, rarely more than 8 lines per stanza. I soon realized that for people with ageing eyesight, Comic Sans was by far the best choice. I didn't think of it myself; I just found I could kibitz other people's songbooks from further away if they used Comic Sans.
Any real typographers out there know how Comic Sans was developed? I'd guess that unlike Computer Modern it had some usability research behind it.
========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <======== Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760 <http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes, Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files and CD-ROMs of Scottish music.
Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Bella Jones <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > > But Times New Roman still looks naff at large point sizes and I could > > > never understand its use as a default font.
> > Why is it so naff? I guess because it's so small and cramped, and just > > screeches 'the early days of the homepage'. Like PeterC, I use Palatino.
> For me the comparison is in the treatment of loops; they are much more > generous and outgoing (really sharp, technical analysis here, of course > you're amused by its presumption) than they are in Times New Roman. But > there is a real difference, and Palatino feels much better as a result.
I'm speaking from the web development point of view and like it or not the majority of people view the web through Windows. So if you specify a font on a web page you have to be sure the majority of viewers have access to it. Palatino Linotype was not available pre installed on Windows 9x. It didn't become available pre installed until Windows 2000 and only reached the home user with XP. There are other serif fonts available pre installed with all flavours of Windows, but it's only relatively recently that the web developer could be fairly sure a Windows user would have a screen resolution capable of displaying them in a reasonable fashion. Hence the overwhelming use of sans serif on the web.
> Any real typographers out there know how Comic Sans was developed? > I'd guess that unlike Computer Modern it had some usability research > behind it.
The story goes it was developed by a guy called Vincent Connare at Microsoft, based on comic book lettering. Maybe they figured the core Windows user reads comics, I don't know. <shrug> The same guy developed Trebuchet MS and was also part of the team that developed Webdings.
Sak Wathanasin <s...@network-analysis.ltd.uk> wrote: > In article <1ggr6zd.1no5vyrdzggieN%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>, > pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote: [...] > > than they are in Times New Roman. But > > there is a real difference, and Palatino feels much better as a result.
> Palatino can be a little quirky (esp the capital "P") for setting large > blocks of text. There is no one right font, of course. I like Alison Black's > "Typefaces for desktop publishing: a user guide" for a general discussion of > the issues; it's aimed at the layman rather than people in the trade.
Sadly, out of print and unavailable on Amazon - published 1990, it says...
Elliott Roper <nos...@yrl.co.uk> wrote: > In article <1ggqfs6.fi1w5vspac93N%...@privacy.net>, Bella Jones > <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
[adobe garamond]
> I think there is a Garamond in the Office distro. Not Adobe's version. > Adobe has two, the Other is Adobe Garamond Pro, which is an Open Type > Font. OTF is supposed to play really well with Unicode, so I am > changing all my Word body styles to use Pro so that I am ready for Word > 2004 once I see how any early teething troubles with it pan out for > others.
Ah, actually, it was the 'Pro' I found, now I look.
> Word is pretty bloody awful in the typography department. Its H&J is > really wierd. It arbitrarily changes leading. It gets interword space > in comments totally screwed, even in TNR. It won't hang punctuation, > and has a mind of its own when deciding whether to inhibit space before > on column tops and page tops.
Argh yes! What is it with lines sitting there for a while at the top/bottom of a page, before bouncing up or down again. Arghh! And odd spacing even when the right margin isn't justified.
> > >I use Poppl Laudatio variations for heads and > > Found that in my machine, but it's 'LWFN' and won't open in Font Book. > It is here too, but it does show up. Maybe you are missing the suitcase > file for it? (I'm outta my depth here. If it works, its perfect. If it > doesn't, I bin it)
Me too out of my depth - so all fonts need a suitcase?
