On Monday 21 February 2011 19:49:32 John Brown wrote: > On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:05:20 -0500, John Culleton wrote: > > On Monday 21 February 2011 14:25:37 John Brown wrote: > > > On John Mon, 21 Feb 2011 13:17:59 -0500, > > > > > > John Culleton wrote: > > > > On Monday 21 February 2011 12:52:35 Rob Oakes wrote: > > > > > Hi Drw, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I personally don't care for either Arial or Times New > > > > > Roman. I think they are significantly overused. > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > Rob Oakes > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > Second, because Times is the default for > > > > MSWord it is easily recognizable as the product of an amateur > > > > typographer. So I suggest something outside the Microsoft > > > > Windows collection, such as Bitstream Charter, Minion, Adobe > > > > Garamond or Sabon. > > > > -- > > > > John Culleton > > > > > > That is a reason not to use a font? Because the commoners use > > > it? > > > > > > I would think that the work of an amateur typographer will look > > > amateurish whichever font he uses. Similarly, I would expect > > > the work of the professional to look professional regardless. > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Alias John Brown. > > > > Well its a tough world out there. When you submit to a prepub > > reviewer you don't want to give them an extra reason for denying > > a review. > > [snip] > > > In Bringhurst I find the passage: > > "When the only font available is Cheltenham or Times Roman the > > typographer must make the most of its virtues...but there is > > nothing to be gained by pretending that Times Roman is Bembo..." > > > > And Felici says simply: > > > > "Times is probably used inappropriately more than any other > > typeface today." > > > > Felici also shows a passage set in TR followed by the same > > passage set in Sabon showing the advantage of the wider face. It > > looks much less crowded. > > > > One more time. There are lots of better choices. It is not a > > matter of being commoners, it is a matter of looking like > > amateurs. The authorities, at least the ones on my shelf, seem to > > agree. > > > > One nice font that I forgot to mention is Stone. > > > > > > -- > > John Culleton > > Well, since they don't come more common than I, who can't tell the > difference between Arial and Helvetica, I will take your word for > it. > > A few questions: > > 1) Why did the word-processing world settle upon these pitiful, > hopeless fonts Arial and Times New Roman? I suppose the others did > it because Microsoft did, but why did Microsoft choose these fonts? > > 2) Suppose Microsoft decided that for Office 2015, the default font > will be one of those that you like. Would it still find favour with > Felici, Bringhurst and Company, or would its excellent technical > and artistic qualities suddenly become not so good? > > Regards, > Alias John Brown. > > _______________________________________________ > scribus mailing list > scribus at lists.scribus.info > http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus
Felici at least has nothing against big commercial companies, since his book is published by Adobe. As for why Microsoft chose Times New Roman for their flagship font I have no idea. I also have no idea why IBM pushed Displaywrite as a word processor or tried to convert all their customers from COBOL and FORTRAN to PL/I. I cannot explain why Vista was so bad or why Windows 7 is apparently so good. The decision making of large organizations is often good but just as often atrocious. I have worked for some large organizations and executive hubris is epidemic in all of them. I use free fonts wherever it makes sense to do so. But I don't think and investment of 25 or even 50 dollars in a font and its Italic version is a bad move. After all they don't wear out. -- John Culleton Create Book Covers with Scribus: http://www.booklocker.com/p/books/4055.html Typesetting and indexing http://wexfordpress.com book sales http://wexfordpress.net Free barcode: http://www.tux.org/~milgram/bookland/
