graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) (04/04/91)
Last night I was browsing through Roger Black's new book on DTP, and I noticed something: no colophon. Nowhere in the book do Black specify the type used in the book, or how it was designed. While colophons are the exception these days, it would be good for such design books to include them. If I like how the book looks and feels, I'm interested in what types were used, how they were set, etc. (Conversely, if I hate the appearance of the book, I check to make certain what not to use. For instance, _Words into Type_ has made certain that I'll never use Optima and Futura bold together.) A minor whine. -- Steve Graham graham@isis.ee.washington.edu (206) 543-8115
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (04/05/91)
graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes: > colophons are the exception these days Since you mentioned colophons, I happened to notice a sort-of colophon in an unusual place the other day; the editorial page of the New York Times. They actually ran an editorial explaining why they were making some minor layout changes to their ed and op-ed pages, going into some detail about why the letters to the editor were now being set in 8.5/9.7 instead of 8.5/9.2 like they used to be (although they neglected to mention the name of the font used). -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"