tut%cairo@Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill) (04/12/88)
In article <871@hjuxa.UUCP>, nrh@hjuxa.UUCP (HASLOCK) writes: > I just completed a training course in PostScript and the point was made > repeatedly that simply scaling a font is not good enough. Adobe designed > its fonts to work best at around 12pt. Scaling to below 6pt gives results in > a poor balance between thick and thin strokes especially on high resolution > printers. 300dpi printers simply distort the image because of dot placement. > Scaling to more than 24pt shows up imperfections in the baseline. Several messages lately have repeated the old adage that you can't scale one outline to all point sizes. This is certainly the way typographers used to feel. Some still do, but tastes are changing. People who believe they have any aesthetic sense at all should make up their own minds. Some history is in order. In the old days of lead type and hot metal type, there were often three master outlines: one for small sizes (under 9 point), one for medium sizes (10-16 point), and one for large sizes (above 18 point). This was thought to create the most legible text at all sizes. If you look at an old book, you'll notice that the footnotes often appear to use another font. Many times, it's just a different master size. Look closely. Do you think the small size is more legible than what you see today? Personally I think it looks fat and ugly compared to today's type. When phototypesetters started to replace hot metal type, they scaled fonts optically. Old Unix hands probably remember the CAT/4, which had letters on film that were optically magnified or reduced according to what size was required. Rotating the lens apparatus was slow, so when the CAT/4 produced equations that changed point size a lot, it could take up to half an hour to set a page. (And you think the LazyWriter is slow!) Mathematical scaling of outlines is similar in effect to optical scaling. The difference is that optics are well-understood, whereas the mathematical discipline of font production is still in its infancy. Don Knuth (with Metafont) and Adobe (with PostScript) have made good strides in this field, but neither Metafont nor PostScript works as well as scaling systems will probably work in the future. It's been about 50 years since optical scaling has been available, and about 10 years since mathematical scaling has been used in commercial typesetters (the Linotron 101 and APS-5) and in more affordable laser printers (the LazyWriter). During this time, readers have gotten used to having both small and large point sizes produced from medium-size masters. Some readers actually like it better this way. Before people go spouting off about "doing it right," why not take a look at a font catalog and see if you really think that different font masters for different sizes is the right approach. While you're at it, perhaps you'd like to consider trading your late model car for a Model T.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (04/12/88)
In article <49095@sun.uucp> tut%cairo@Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill) writes: >During this time, readers have gotten used to >having both small and large point sizes produced from medium-size masters. It's not a matter of what one is "used to", it's a matter of legibility. The human visual system is rather non-linear in most of its processing. For that matter, by now we're all used to running text set in sans-serif fonts such as Helvetica, but that doesn't make it as easy to read as a good serif font, something that good typographers acknowledge but that the "artistic" typographers don't seem to care about. >While you're at it, perhaps >you'd like to consider trading your late model car for a Model T. If this is mean to be an analogy, then the "Model T" should correspond to isometric fonts which exist simply because they were easier to implement, not because they were what the job called for. This is a common software quality failing, by the way, not limited to printer software. If you're willing to adopt the same attitude toward type quality that troff takes toward typesetting quality (as opposed to TEX for example), then isometric fonts are adequate, but if you're after the best quality attainable, your software should be able to accommodate non-isometric font families.
tut%cairo@Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill) (04/13/88)
Brent Byer pointed out an error in my last posting: I should have said Linotron 202, not Linotron 101. Silly me, thinking that model numbers went up as time marched along. Brent also pointed out something I forgot-- the Mergenthaler 202 did a horrible job of scaling up because of deficiencies in its scaling algorithm: above 48 point you can see flat lines on rounded portions of characters. For this reason-- not for any aesthetic reason-- they had to offer different masters for display sizes. In article <7660@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes: > It's not a matter of what one is "used to", it's a matter of legibility. > The human visual system is rather non-linear in most of its processing... Let's face it, this is all a matter of opinion. Personally I think that when you're publishing text in a small point size, you're better off using Bembo (or similar font that looks good at small sizes) rather than a smaller master of Palatino (or similar font that looks good at medium sizes). What I don't like is having different design sizes mixed together. When I see old books in (let's say) Times Roman, the footnotes look like they're in a different font than the body type. They aren't. They're just produced from different masters. The clash of design type is almost as ugly, in my opinion, as typography by beginners who use every available font on a single page, just to demonstrate their virtuosity, but doing just the opposite. I agree with you that sans-serif fonts are less legible than serif fonts. But this is exactly why they're often used in advertising copy-- Madison Avenue sure doesn't want you to actually *read* that stuff. It's odd that Helvetica-- the most popular sans-serif font in the US-- is also one of the worst (Avant Garbage is the worst). In France, Univers is the most popular sans-serif font, and I think it's superior to Helvetica. Let's face it, this is all a matter of opinion. To my knowledge there are no scientific studies showing which fonts are more legible than others. Many widely-cited studies are often used to support positions that the original studies cannot support. For example, an IBM study showing that ragged-right *typewritten* text is more legible than right-justified text is often cited by people who believe in ragged-right *typeset* text with religious fervor. The original study didn't even consider typeset text, so its conclusions should not be applied to typeset text. With typeset text, I find right-justified text more legible than ragged-right, but in the case of monospaced text, I agree with the IBM study.
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (04/13/88)
>Let's face it, this is all a matter of opinion. Personally I think that >when you're publishing text in a small point size, you're better off using >Bembo (or similar font that looks good at small sizes) rather than a smaller >master of Palatino (or similar font that looks good at medium sizes). Just as a side discussion, can anyone recommend a good serif postscript font that would look good coming off a 300DPI machine and survive Xerography and/or offset printing legibly? I'm currently using 10pt Palatino for my stuff, but would love to go to a 9pt font if I could find one that could handle some abuse... I'm thinking of Galliard, but I'm not convinced. >But this is exactly why they're often used in advertising copy-- Madison >Avenue sure doesn't want you to actually *read* that stuff. I don't agree with this comment. First, in large point sizes, Sans Serif fonts can be quite eye-catching. This is headline size material, not text. The reason sans-serif is used in lots of advertising is simple. Ad's almost invariably have more text to display than you normally have room for. Sans Serif fonts tend to be more compact, so you can fit more text into a given number of square inches. You give up legibility, but for short pieces of text (third page, half page) you can get away with that. The alternative would be a smaller point sized serif font, which would have legibility problems and generally looks cramped compared to the same text in a larger sans serif. >It's odd that Helvetica-- the most popular sans-serif font in the US-- is >also one of the worst (Avant Garbage is the worst). I've always been amazed at the propensity to shove Helvetica at anything you might consider a headline. ugly, ugly, ugly. If I see another fanzine/newsletter/memo/etc with Times body text and Helvetica headlines I think I'll fwow up. And Avant Garde is worse -- the only possible reason Adobe/Apple put THAT in the LW+ Roms was because they really want people to buy downloadable fonts.... >Many widely-cited studies are often used to support positions that the >original studies cannot support. For example, an IBM study showing that >ragged-right *typewritten* text is more legible than right-justified text >is often cited by people who believe in ragged-right *typeset* text with >religious fervor. The original study didn't even consider typeset text, >so its conclusions should not be applied to typeset text. With typeset >text, I find right-justified text more legible than ragged-right, but in >the case of monospaced text, I agree with the IBM study. Again, it depends. OtherRealms is ragged right because I find that trying to do a three-column/justified/10pt_Palatino page makes the page too grey and stressful to read. Going back to ragged right makes it easier to track the columns and brightens the page with more white space. If I were using a smaller point size and if I could increase the width of the column gutters and if I could increase the size of the margins, I'd probably feel differently, but if you've got a page with lots of text, justifiication tends to increase it's tendency to gray out and look cramped and makes it harder to read. Which is why even when you disagree with studies that over-generalize, it's not a good idea to generalize. Layout and Graphic Design is a big gray area and there are very, very few definite rights and wrongs. What you have to do is figure out what's right and wrong for a given instance (which is why top line graphic designers make lots of money....) Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Things without all remedy should be without regard. What's done is done. (Shakespeare, Macbeth)
bb@wjh12.harvard.edu (Brent Byer) (04/13/88)
[ First, a thank you to Richard Sexton for taking the initiative to start this group. ] I was going to stay out of this haggling a while longer, but ... It's been lots of fun watching the several self-appointed "experts" display their ignorance. Trouble is, though, that few of the spectators would realize it; they just get misled, and poorly introduced to a fascinating subject. [ Please don't misinterpret me. I am *NOT* an expert at this; just a little more experienced than most. We would all benefit if Charles Bigelow (of Bigelow & Holmes) or Matthew Carter (of Bitstream Inc.) would visit here occasionally and keep us on an even keel, with a sprinkle of enlightenment now and then. They are true masters. ] [ I believe that ] Font scaling was employed, as a technological advancement, with the first *photo*typesetters. These typically used a glass base upon which was a high-quality master of the font's character set. Compared to racks of type, with each size separate, this breakthrough was welcomed by many, the compositor's union and traditionalists being the exception. Soon after its introduction, a serious shortcoming was observed. [ Actually, I am sure the experts of the previous era saw it coming, but of course, no one listened. ] Note that a typical letterform, in practice, includes its "side-bearings", the narrow columns of 'whitespace' bounding the 'glyph' itself. When the character is magnified (optically), not only is the glyph enlarged, but also the side-bearings! This is not good, because the esthetic (and psycho-visual??) need for this inter-character separation is not linear. [ I believe ] this was the primary reason that separate masters were created for different size ranges. While they were at it, minor embellishments were added (primarily in the serifs, but also subtle nuances like 'ink-traps'). Keep in mind that the composition (type setting) facilities used with these early contraptions was extremely primitive, probably evolving from mechanical looms :-). Hence, it was not feasible to just "program out" the unwanted whitespace in larger type. As the programmability of composition equipment advanced, there was less need for separate masters, but a new tradition had started, and there were those who desired to preserve it (and the additional revenue it fetched). A well-designed (and implemented) font does not suffer from accurate scaling at reasonably high resolution. Enough (for now), Brent Byer ( harvard!wjh12!bb ihnp4!ihesa!textware!brent ) "Nancy, who's that ugly dwarf with his hand in your mouth?"
mls@whutt.UUCP (SIEMON) (04/14/88)
In article <7660@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes: > ... > > For that matter, by now we're all used to running text set in sans-serif > fonts such as Helvetica, but that doesn't make it as easy to read as a > good serif font, something that good typographers acknowledge but that > the "artistic" typographers don't seem to care about. > Doug, do you have any references to recent studies on this? I'm not disputing that serifed faces are easier to read (they ARE for me), but the only tests of this that I know of go back to the 30s and 40s (some were by Cyril Burt, so they are almost a priori suspect, but there was an American study sometime in the late 40s as well.) The point of the query is that I've also seen the suggestion that the better performance of subjects with serifs is at least in part a matter of familiarity with the font (what one learned to read from, in fact.) I would greatly enjoy seeing reviews/reports on recent work in this newsgroup. -- Michael L. Siemon contracted to AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!mhuxu!mls standard disclaimer
doug@eris (Doug Merritt) (04/16/88)
In article <3062@whutt.UUCP> mls@whutt.UUCP (SIEMON) writes: > I'm not disputing >that serifed faces are easier to read (they ARE for me), but the only tests >of this that I know of go back to the 30s and 40s (some were by Cyril Burt, Yes, there have been much more recent studies...I read something recent on this within the last year, but I can't place the reference! (Arghh...) Anyway, I did touch on the reason why they are in my recent posting about smoothing fonts. Perhaps it was too long for anyone to bother reading? I'll have to practice being trs (terse). Doug Merritt doug@mica.berkeley.edu (ucbvax!mica!doug) or ucbvax!unisoft!certes!doug