Not to mention optimum line lengths, amount of whitespace, justification ... It is unfortunately far too common to assume that lessons learned centuries ago are no longer relevant, just because they weren't digital. Actually, that was one of the big changes then: type was inherently fixed-width, so there was no way to write a little bit tighter to fit a word in, the way that free-hand scribes could. Mike
________________________________ From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Jason Pruim Sent: 30 January 2009 11:26 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Failed A Job :( On Jan 30, 2009, at 12:43 AM, William Donovan wrote: Hang on, did I miss something or is this completely OT (off topic). Bible's, Gutenberg, print type faces... Web Standards...? Nahhh.... It's all about type faces that are easier to read on the web and understanding why some are better then others :) -- Jason Pruim japr...@raoset.com 616.399.2355 ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
