laser-lovers@uw-beaver (05/19/85)
From: Les Earnest <LES@SU-AI.ARPA> I wish to apologize to the several Laser-Lovers who sent private messages expressing their frustration at not being given full results from the blind tasting and to others who may have had similar thoughts. I would very much like to report the results, but given that I sprang the idea on the Lunch Bunch without prior notice and that several of them felt uncomfortable about revealing the group preference, whatever their motives, I felt that I could not in good conscience go against their wishes. I will attempt to get agreement in advance that the next tasting will be open. From a practical standpoint, I believe that it will be hard to get people to send us samples unless we agree to disclose results. Of course, people can and should have private tastings whenever they wish, but the only honest way to run these proceedings is to agree in advance whether or not the results may be reported openly and then stick to it come what may. The next time that a participant squeamishly suggests that "We should wait and see how it turns out before we decide whether to release the results," my response will be "Hell no! Do it straight or forget it." Responding to the remarks by Harris Edelman and Chuck Bigelow, the font samples used in the blind tasting were both printed on the same engine (Canon CX). Both producers were licensed for Times (New) Roman by the same source (Allied Corporation) and both presumably received the same digital outline data for the various design sizes. Each producer used his own methods to quantize and coerce the outline representations into bitmaps on the 300 dpi grid. According to reports that are probably true, but unverified, one producer used the 10 point master to generate the 10 point font, which yielded the wider font of the two, and the other producer chose to scale down from the 12 point master, consistent with Chuck Bigelow's observations. Incidentally, while I am always impressed with Chuck Bigelow's erudite contributions, I am curious about why there is always a "$" following his signoff. Is that imprint to be interpreted as a lament for lost consulting time? Or is it simply the timeout signal from Chuck's "free advice" limiter? Cheers, Les Earnest