stevens@hsi.UUCP (Richard Stevens) (06/08/89)
Why are almost all technical books done in Times Roman these days ?
Going through my bookshelf, other than Knuth's books,
almost everything seems to be in Times Roman, with 10 point
characters on 12 point spacing. Somehow Tanenbaum was able
to get his second edition of networking in what looks like 11/13.
Even the Red and Blue Adobe PostScript books are Times Roman.
(You'd think that if anyone could do a book nicely in another
font it would be Adobe.)
I think the Times family on our LaserWriters look pretty bad.
Is this endemic to the LW, or should I expect the same font on
a high-resolution PostScript typesetter to look better ?
What's the reason for this addiction to Times Roman ? Going through
the Adobe Font catalog, there appear to be more readable serif fonts
with the characters just a little wider. (My main complaint about
Times is that it looks so squeezed.) Do publishers like Times
because it uses a fewer number of pages ? Is it just history ?
I note the Chicago Manual of Style says that few typefaces other
than Times Roman have all the necessary characters necessary for
technical typesetting, but a *lot* has happened in the area of
type fonts since 1982.
Richard Stevens
Health Systems International, New Haven, CT
stevens@hsi.com
... { uunet | yale } ! hsi ! stevensken@capone.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (06/08/89)
--
As they say in Fiddler, it's 'tradition'. Certainly, font technology
has progressed, but that doesn't mean that the publishing industry has
taken advantage of it.
...ken
ken seefried iii ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs,
ken@gatech.edu masscomp, rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl, unmvax,
ut-ngp, ut-sally}!gatech!kenleichter@CS.YALE.EDU (Jerry Leichter (LEICHTER-JERRY@CS.YALE.EDU)) (06/08/89)
In article <485@hsi86.hsi.UUCP>, stevens@hsi.UUCP (Richard Stevens) writes... >Why are almost all technical books done in Times Roman these days ? >Going through my bookshelf, other than Knuth's books, >almost everything seems to be in Times Roman.... > >I think the Times family on our LaserWriters look pretty bad. >Is this endemic to the LW, or should I expect the same font on >a high-resolution PostScript typesetter to look better ? > >What's the reason for this addiction to Times Roman ? Going through >the Adobe Font catalog, there appear to be more readable serif fonts >with the characters just a little wider. (My main complaint about >Times is that it looks so squeezed.) Do publishers like Times >because it uses a fewer number of pages ? Is it just history ? >I note the Chicago Manual of Style says that few typefaces other >than Times Roman have all the necessary characters necessary for >technical typesetting, but a *lot* has happened in the area of >type fonts since 1982. To quote Charles Bigelow's introduction to "Computer Modern Typefaces": Typography is a conservative art: The style that is called "modern" in English typographic terminology is two hundred years old. Type design is inseperable from printing technology. The Times family has too much fine detail to work well on 300 dpi laser printers. But that is, of course, of no interest to printers with access to high-quality typesetting equipment. The latest typographic technology is only about 10 years old. The first full professional font designed "for the modern age" (Bigelow's Lucida) is half that. It will take time for the new ideas to become accepted. (But they are getting there - Scientific American is now typeset in Lucida. Personally, I can't say I like it much - months of reading have made it familiar, but I still prefer whatever SA used to use. Ah, well, an old fogey at 35 and it's not even my field.... :-) ) -- Jerry
jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (06/08/89)
> Richard Stevens writes: > Why are almost all technical books done in Times Roman these days ? > Going through my bookshelf, other than Knuth's books, > almost everything seems to be in Times Roman, with 10 point > characters on 12 point spacing. Somehow Tanenbaum was able > to get his second edition of networking in what looks like 11/13. > Even the Red and Blue Adobe PostScript books are Times Roman. > (You'd think that if anyone could do a book nicely in another > font it would be Adobe.) > I think the Times family on our LaserWriters look pretty bad. > Is this endemic to the LW, or should I expect the same font on > a high-resolution PostScript typesetter to look better ? > What's the reason for this addiction to Times Roman ? Going through > the Adobe Font catalog, there appear to be more readable serif fonts > with the characters just a little wider. (My main complaint about > Times is that it looks so squeezed.) Do publishers like Times > because it uses a fewer number of pages ? Is it just history ? > I note the Chicago Manual of Style says that few typefaces other > than Times Roman have all the necessary characters necessary for > technical typesetting, but a *lot* has happened in the area of > type fonts since 1982. 10 point Times Roman is the default in troff (which was intended for a typesetter, not a laser printer). It's also just about the only typeface available on the laser printers at AT&T under troff (except Helvetica which is used for headings). It's also what happens when engineers design books as indicated in the current flame wars on comp.text.desktop (see: Flame wars: (was: Re: Ventura)). Both Century Schoolbook and Bookman are much more readable serif faces than Times Roman on a laser printer. ITC Advant Gard Gothic is more readable than Helvetica on a laser printer and goes well with Century Schoolbook. These three faces are also included with most standard Postscript (Apple) printers. You can do something about it in your own installation! Insist on 12 point minimum if you have to have Times Roman on a laser printer (just make a copy of a copy to prove your point). Insist on a different typeface if you have to have 10 point type. And, for the books, write to the publisher and complain. Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi I believe in absolute freedom of the press. Pax Probiscus! Sturgeon's Law (Revised): 98.89% of everything is drek (1.11% is peanut butter). Rarely able to send an email reply sucessfully. The opinions expressed here are not necessarily Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion.
bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) (06/08/89)
From article <485@hsi86.hsi.UUCP>, by stevens@hsi.UUCP (Richard Stevens): > Why are almost all technical books done in Times Roman these days ? > ... > Even the Red and Blue Adobe PostScript books are Times Roman. > (You'd think that if anyone could do a book nicely in another > font it would be Adobe.) They have. Look at the green book.
eykhout@wn2.sci.kun.nl (Victor Eijkhout) (06/09/89)
From article <485@hsi86.hsi.UUCP>, by stevens@hsi.UUCP (Richard Stevens):
> Why are almost all technical books done in Times Roman these days ?
Times Roman was developed between 1929 and 1933 by Stanley Morison
and (engraver) Victor Lardent. Morison was able to convince the
Times of London that a more modern type was needed. Times new roman
is an adaptation of Plantin. Types like Baskerville were ruled
out, because they were too uneconomic in space.
The converse is therefore true: TNR looks 'tight' (remember: it's
for a newspaper).
Why is it used for books so much:
- it is a very good looking type
- it is one of the very few types that have sufficient
mathematical and other technical symbols.
Re: tradition. For lead technology and early electronic
switching type is not so easy as it is nowadays.
Besides, printers would have a feel of some types, and therefore
prefer those above the fickle wishes of the customers.
'Hope this clears the discussion a little.
Victor.brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd) (06/13/89)
In article <485@hsi86.hsi.UUCP>, stevens@hsi.UUCP (Richard Stevens) writes: > Why are almost all technical books done in Times Roman these days ? I actually typeset books to make a buck (using profficient, an enhanced troff, no less) and in recent years I would say that less than half have used Times. Garamond, Century, Paladium (Palatino) and others have all been popular with the big book publishers like Benjamin Cummings, Wiley, Prentice-Hall, etc. 10/12 is quite adequate when using a real typesetter, but I agree that those who produce laser printer documentation should seriosly consider 11/13 to save old eyes like mine. Walt Brainerd Unicomp, Inc. brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu
des@yatton.inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd) (06/19/89)
In article <485@inmos.co.uk (Richard Stevens) writes: >Why are almost all technical books done in Times Roman these days ? >Going through my bookshelf, other than Knuth's books, >almost everything seems to be in Times Roman, with 10 point >characters on 12 point spacing. Once again INMOS inovates. Several years ago our "style" (marketing I think) decided that 10 pt Helvetica on 11pt spacing with 170mm lines was the way to go (!!!) allong with a home-brew TeX macro package and we've been lumbered with that ever since for our documentation. Subsequently by subversive editing of LaTeX .STY files I changed the 11 pt spacing to 12 pt (;-) Now, I tend to use New Century Schoolbook with standard LaTeX .STY files. david shepherd INMOS