On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:05:44PM -0400, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote: > On 10/19/18 11:56 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 09:49:16PM -0400, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote: > > > >>> Right now one can see what one types from the underlined letters. > >>> Actually, this is already a bit hard to see and I would suggest to do > >>> something less subtle, like using bold font for the highlight rather > >>> than underline. I think that would also look cool. > >> Definitely. Done. > > I actually liked the underline [1]. I just tested with both bold and > > underline, and I like that result also. Would both bold and underline be > > acceptable to others? > > I'm happy with whatever we settle upon. But Daniel had suggested that > the underline is hard to see, and I agreed with him. I can barely see it > at all. The bold at least makes it obvious what's happening, and it's > helpful, so long as we're matching substrings and not just at the > beginning.
That makes sense. To be clear, I wasn't proposing to stay with only underlining. I was proposing adding underlining in addition to bold. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
