nb@COYOTE (Neenie Billawala) (01/30/86)
I have just spoken with Barbara Beeton of the American Math Society and editor of the "Tugboat", the TeX User Group publication. For their issue Volume7 Number2 which is scheduled for June 86, they are planning to include reproductions of the font tasting samples as well as the comments of the tasters. If more results are received by their publication deadline of April 86, they can be included too. Without having originals to look at, their method of reproduction probably introduces less distortion than that of a copier. Yes, 5 months is a long time to wait. If anyone has a better/more appropriate and feasible (sic) solution for disseminating samples, please let us know. -neenie
nb@SU-GREGORIO.ARPA (Neenie Billawala) (01/31/86)
Oops, I think I opened up a can of worms... regarding any general dissemination of the font tasting samples. There wasn't any original intention to distribute the samples en masse. But people are expressing interest in seeing the samples. At the rate of perhaps one person every 1-4 weeks, which is what might happen if the originals are sent from person to person, not many might get a chance. SvB asks if "photocopies wouldn't be good enough concerning the quality?" No, copiers introduce definite distortions. Typically, they will either add weight to the characters or thin them out. Some will even give heavier characters on one side of the page and thinner ones on the other, though this usually happens when the copier gets older or out of tune. To look at a copy as opposed to an original adds one more level of complexity, as one looks at different combinations of printer/font/formatter and now copier. It is best to simplify as much as possible, and try to isolate that thing or things which are to be compared. When the people at Tugboat were willing to publish the results and the samples, it seemed a workable compromise. So, please, no more requests for "copies". Thanks. Neenie