> Scribus evaluates fonts when it first starts up, and > disregards those that are not deemed "good". This mostly has > to do with whether the font metrics are proper and other > needed information is there. By definition, a bitmap font > will be discarded.
Sorry, my mistake. I was curious about what's printy worthy as a way to further myself. I have it quite clear the general idea of how scribus would select fonts and by the quality of the pdf output I assume the selection algorithms are an excellent broken font filter. > OTOH, there are some "quality" fonts that look awful, and > should be rarely if ever used. :) Yes. Some 15 years ago when I have been looking at TeX and LaTeX I have stumbled upon the Palatino pack and font. And I have found it refreshing. I still can't give a decent argument why I dislike the Windows defaults (Arial/Times New Roman). Maybe it's because most prints go on with using them as defaults. And Palatino, with its round form, was able to help make my paper look larger while keeping the font (height) smaller than the others. Lately I like Gentium (the free font) as good - again, with no arguments to back it up. These days I got to look at some Adobe fonts and Jenson Light or Minion Italic really impressed me with their forms. So I'm thinking what's the science behind that feeling, how can one tell the difference between a good font and an excellent one?
