doug@crdgw1.ge.com (Doug Becker) (11/14/90)
Having determined that the default XView font is too small for our
application's needs, I'm investigating other fonts as candidates for
use in our application's user interface elements.
I was surprised to find that the OPEN LOOK Functional Specification
appears to be quite lenient in terms of font selection for UI items.
In particular, the only relevant passage appears to be on page 5
(Chapter 1), under Fonts:
"A sans serif, variable width font is used for the common elements
of the OPEN LOOK UI. Consistent use of the same font in all the
elements of the interface contributes to the design concept of the
interface as a backdrop against which the application is featured.
Of course, an application can use whatever fonts the developer
chooses in the part of the window that is reserved for the display
of application information."
I had always been under the vague impression that the Lucida font was
part of the OPEN LOOK functional spec; apparently this is incorrect,
as the spec seems to indicate that any sans-serif, variable-width font
is acceptable. Fonts don't appear to be mentioned to any meaningful
degree at all in the Application Style Guidelines. Of course, many
(if not all) the other OPEN LOOK applications I've seen appear to use
the Lucida font, and I agree that consistency across applications is
desirable. However, our particular circumstances may preclude the use
of Lucida at this time.
What is the general feeling about using a non-Lucida font in OPEN LOOK
UI items, especially a non-Lucida font that conforms to the spec, i.e.
is sans-serif and variable width?
--
Douglas H. Becker
doug@nmri.GE.COM
{somewhere}!crdgw1.GE.COM!sane!dougdjb@cbnews.att.com (David J. Bryant) (11/14/90)
In article <o49ybtw@openlook.Unify.Com>, sane!genmri!doug@crdgw1.ge.com (Doug Becker) writes: > Having determined that the default XView font is too small for our > application's needs, I'm investigating other fonts as candidates for > use in our application's user interface elements. > > I was surprised to find that the OPEN LOOK Functional Specification > appears to be quite lenient in terms of font selection for UI items. > In particular, the only relevant passage appears to be on page 5 > (Chapter 1), under Fonts: > > What is the general feeling about using a non-Lucida font in OPEN LOOK > UI items, especially a non-Lucida font that conforms to the spec, i.e. > is sans-serif and variable width? I want unlimited control of fonts in all Open Look UI items, including the freedom to use 8 *and* 16 bit fonts of any size. This should extend to encompass all text items belonging to the window manager, file manager, etc. My major reason is to support full internationalization of my applications, but even in an "all-American" setting I want to be able to adjust item sizing and appearance to suit, and also employ visual cues and typographic techniques without hard constraints from the Open Look spec or toolkits that support it. Some of the OLIT widgets allow arbitrary selection of 8-bit fonts, while others force Lucida. I'm looking forward to the internationalized toolkit environments giving me the even better font variability I need. After having worked with Open Look for over a year now and milked OLIT for all the font flexibility I can manage, I believe font freedom does not compromise the style, signature and superior UI aspects of Open Look. I should say, however, that I am wholeheartedly in favor of font guidelines in the spec so people can at least be aware of good interface design principles. (And we've all read the spec, right??) UUCP: att!cbosgd!djb David Bryant att!cborion!djb AT&T Bell Laboratories INTERNET: djb@cbosgd.att.com Room 1B-256 cborion!djb@att.com 6200 East Broad Street PHONE: (614) 860-4516 Columbus, Ohio 43213 FAX: (614) 868-4302
grp@Unify.com (Greg Pasquariello) (11/15/90)
In article <o49ybtw@openlook.Unify.Com>, sane!genmri!doug@crdgw1.ge.com (Doug Becker) writes: > Having determined that the default XView font is too small for our > application's needs, I'm investigating other fonts as candidates for > use in our application's user interface elements. > > I was surprised to find that the OPEN LOOK Functional Specification > appears to be quite lenient in terms of font selection for UI items. > In particular, the only relevant passage appears to be on page 5 > (Chapter 1), under Fonts: > > "A sans serif, variable width font is used for the common elements > of the OPEN LOOK UI. Consistent use of the same font in all the > elements of the interface contributes to the design concept of the > interface as a backdrop against which the application is featured. > Of course, an application can use whatever fonts the developer > chooses in the part of the window that is reserved for the display > of application information." > In an old copy of the "AT&T Open Look Graphical User Interface Specification Guide", there is a section of engineering specifications that specifies all fonts as "sans serif, roman" and usually specifies a point size that corresponds to the control's size. I don't know if these engineering specs are present in the Addison-Wesley books or not; mine is at home. Is Lucida san-serif roman? There is also a passage in the "International Considerations" section the advises you to keep in mind the fact that some character sets (Asian is noted) support specific font heights, and do not have serifs. > I had always been under the vague impression that the Lucida font was > part of the OPEN LOOK functional spec; apparently this is incorrect, > as the spec seems to indicate that any sans-serif, variable-width font > is acceptable. Fonts don't appear to be mentioned to any meaningful > degree at all in the Application Style Guidelines. Of course, many > (if not all) the other OPEN LOOK applications I've seen appear to use > the Lucida font, and I agree that consistency across applications is > desirable. However, our particular circumstances may preclude the use > of Lucida at this time. > > What is the general feeling about using a non-Lucida font in OPEN LOOK > UI items, especially a non-Lucida font that conforms to the spec, i.e. > is sans-serif and variable width? > > -- > > Douglas H. Becker > doug@nmri.GE.COM > {somewhere}!crdgw1.GE.COM!sane!doug -- --- Greg Pasquariello Unify Corporation grp@Unify.Com
merlyn@attunix.att.com (11/15/90)
> What is the general feeling about using a non-Lucida font in OPEN LOOK > UI items, especially a non-Lucida font that conforms to the spec, i.e. > is sans-serif and variable width? I believe in a consistent look for the whole display (not just for each application). Consistency, though, does not necessarily mean bit-for-bit sameness. You should feel free to use a font that makes sense for your particular needs. There are obvious places where *any* font must be allowed, e.g. desktop publishing applications. In places where the font is not critical, it should ``work well'' with the fonts used similarly in other applications. For instance, the fonts found in buttons should be similar across all applications, otherwise users may think the button with the odd font has a peculiar function. However, this rule of thumb does not require bit-for-bit identical fonts. The spec. says sans serif, mainly because mixing serifs with sans serifs will likely present the user with a mix that confuses. Note that on most displays today, the difference between various sans serif fonts at 12 pts isn't major. But note further that slant and weight typically will present a noticeable difference, and should be used carefully. Bottom line: If you think you need to use a non-Lucida sans serif font, try it and see how it looks with other applications using the Lucida font. Steve Humphrey UNIX System Laboratories merlyn@attunix.att.com
chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (11/15/90)
In article <1990Nov14.130354@Unify.com>, grp@Unify.com (Greg Pasquariello) writes: > Is Lucida san-serif roman? Yes. And no. Sans-serif, without serifs, means that strokes end cleanly, without little caps perpendicular to the stroke. Serifs were originally created by stone cutters, who had a hard time chiseling a clean end to a stroke. By chiseling across the end of the stroke, they got an attractive ending to the stroke. Roman is the version of a font that is not italic, bold, oblique, or otherwise modified. The italic version of a face is slanted, and is usually redrawn to be slightly more "flowery" or "scripty" looking. The oblique version is usually a roman face that has been slanted. Bold has the stroke widths increased, depending on the bold amount (bold, demibold, etc). Some faces have a narrow version, like Helvetica. To my knowledge, all Lucida faces are sans-serif. Of course, there are roman, oblique, and various bold versions of Lucida. Lucida is a good display face because it was designed specifically for use by digital imaging equipment like raster displays and pixel-based printers. The strokes and bowls of the glyphs are designed to prevent ink trapping, and to let the fonts scale without sudden jumps in ink density. Charles Bigelow, the designer of Lucida, gave an interesting talk on Lucida at the 1987 SIGGRAPH. Lucida is the face used by Scientific American, by the way. I guess this brings SA closer to OPEN LOOK-compliance than any other publication. :-) The history and technology behind typefaces is just fascinating. After you learn to recognize the faces, you see them everywhere. I can't pick up Life magazine without thinking, "Palatino". I was in London and picked up a copy of the Sunday London Times, and was somewhat thrilled to see the original Times-Roman. But then, I've always been a little strange... -- Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 729-2537 A good newspaper is never good enough, but a lousy newspaper is a joy forever. -- Garrison Keillor