Tex,
Your such a great researcher and a font for a book is a big decision.
http://ezinearticles.com/?What-Font-Sho ... id=1344490
The photos of Sally's gathering are priceless.
Thank you,
Love,
Joanna
I Could Use An Opinion
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
-
harvest_table
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 6:29 pm
- Location: Fergus Falls, Minnesota
THE GLUTEN FILES
http://jccglutenfree.googlepages.com/
http://jccglutenfree.googlepages.com/
Gee Joanna,
Why did you have to come up with that article after so many of us had agreed that Times New Roman was perfectly fine? LOL. Your "expert" labeled us all as amateurs.
Okay, name-calling can be a two-way street. I've read a lot of background information on this stuff before, so I will agree with Shiel, that Times New Roman was created in the 1930's, and it was indeed first used by the London Times. After that, newspapers adopted it on a wholesale basis, and they continued to use it for many decades. I will also concede that during the 1990's, most newspapers stopped using it, and began to experiment with other fonts. However, here's the fly in that ointment: No one has ever cited a good reason why they decided to stop using Times New Roman. Furthermore, since they stopped using it, most newspapers seem to change fonts every few years, as if they are in search of something that they can't find. So what is the actual reason why they stopped using Times New Roman?
No one seems to know, but I'll venture a guess - they stopped using Times New Roman, because some "expert" told them that they needed to hire some new blood in the way of a "font expert", in order to modernize their printing process. So what do newly-hired "experts" do? They recommend changes, (otherwise, how are they going to justify being on the payroll?). And why do employers adopt such changes? Because they would feel foolish paying someone that much money, and not deriving some benefit from that expenditure. So naturally, when "experts" recommend changes, they are going to proclaim that anyone who resists such changes are obviously "amateurs", which then becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
IMO, recommending change, just for the sake of change, (which is obviously the case with the use of Times New Roman by so many newspapers, amounts to nothing more than an amateurish practice by so-called "experts". If those "experts" really know their stuff, why would most newspapers continue to change fonts every few years, ever since they gave up Times New Roman, after using the same font for decades? Times New Roman was fine for 60 some-odd years, but now that they have moved away from it, they can't find a decent replacement, and they would be too embarrassed to admit their mistake, and go back to it. So much for the "experts".
OK, that said, you've convinced me to go back to Palatino Linotype, except that I'll size it at 11 points, rather than 13. 11 point Palatino Linotype prints out with identical pitch, (compared with Times New Roman 12), so that the number of characters per line will be virtually identical. And, in the process, it provides a more open style, that does tend to make the page seem brighter, (less-dense). I like the horizontal spacing provided by Times New Roman 12, but it does tend to make the text appear rather dark, so I prefer the way that Palatino Linotype makes the text seem lighter, and brighter. One way that Palatino Linotype does that is by automatically providing more vertical space between lines, without having to fiddle with complicated formatting options. Hopefully, that will make the book easier to read, and less tiring on the eyes.
Here's that same text sample in Palatino Linotype 11, for anyone who wants to see how it actually prints out:
http://www.perskyfarms.com/phpBB2/image ... e%2011.rtf
Thanks,
Love,
Tex
Why did you have to come up with that article after so many of us had agreed that Times New Roman was perfectly fine? LOL. Your "expert" labeled us all as amateurs.
Okay, name-calling can be a two-way street. I've read a lot of background information on this stuff before, so I will agree with Shiel, that Times New Roman was created in the 1930's, and it was indeed first used by the London Times. After that, newspapers adopted it on a wholesale basis, and they continued to use it for many decades. I will also concede that during the 1990's, most newspapers stopped using it, and began to experiment with other fonts. However, here's the fly in that ointment: No one has ever cited a good reason why they decided to stop using Times New Roman. Furthermore, since they stopped using it, most newspapers seem to change fonts every few years, as if they are in search of something that they can't find. So what is the actual reason why they stopped using Times New Roman?
No one seems to know, but I'll venture a guess - they stopped using Times New Roman, because some "expert" told them that they needed to hire some new blood in the way of a "font expert", in order to modernize their printing process. So what do newly-hired "experts" do? They recommend changes, (otherwise, how are they going to justify being on the payroll?). And why do employers adopt such changes? Because they would feel foolish paying someone that much money, and not deriving some benefit from that expenditure. So naturally, when "experts" recommend changes, they are going to proclaim that anyone who resists such changes are obviously "amateurs", which then becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
IMO, recommending change, just for the sake of change, (which is obviously the case with the use of Times New Roman by so many newspapers, amounts to nothing more than an amateurish practice by so-called "experts". If those "experts" really know their stuff, why would most newspapers continue to change fonts every few years, ever since they gave up Times New Roman, after using the same font for decades? Times New Roman was fine for 60 some-odd years, but now that they have moved away from it, they can't find a decent replacement, and they would be too embarrassed to admit their mistake, and go back to it. So much for the "experts".
OK, that said, you've convinced me to go back to Palatino Linotype, except that I'll size it at 11 points, rather than 13. 11 point Palatino Linotype prints out with identical pitch, (compared with Times New Roman 12), so that the number of characters per line will be virtually identical. And, in the process, it provides a more open style, that does tend to make the page seem brighter, (less-dense). I like the horizontal spacing provided by Times New Roman 12, but it does tend to make the text appear rather dark, so I prefer the way that Palatino Linotype makes the text seem lighter, and brighter. One way that Palatino Linotype does that is by automatically providing more vertical space between lines, without having to fiddle with complicated formatting options. Hopefully, that will make the book easier to read, and less tiring on the eyes.
Here's that same text sample in Palatino Linotype 11, for anyone who wants to see how it actually prints out:
http://www.perskyfarms.com/phpBB2/image ... e%2011.rtf
Thanks,
Love,
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Hi Cory,
I'm running errands today, so I won't have time to package it and ship it today, but I'll get it out first thing tomorrow.
Tex
I'm running errands today, so I won't have time to package it and ship it today, but I'll get it out first thing tomorrow.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.