RE: re Looking for the right font

Subject: RE: re Looking for the right font
From: "DeQuesada, Sandra J" <Sandra -dot- J -dot- DeQuesada -at- nspco -dot- com>
To: "'techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com'" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:36:53 -0500

Georgia and Verdana were developed specifically for the screen. There is an
interview with Matthew Carter, the designer, at the following URL:

An excerpt of the interview:

"In graphic design circles, people think of screen fonts as preview mode --
it's only when the toner hits the wood-pulp that we usually judge a
But that's an increasingly short-sighted view of life. Larger numbers of
computer users spend their entire time in front of a screen and never (or
seldom) print anything. So it became obvious to us that this was a reversal
of priorities -- we should not approach this as doing printer fonts adapted
for the screen, we should design them as screen fonts from the outset. The
printer fonts are secondary in this case."
-----Original Message-----
From: Beth Friedman [SMTP:bjf -at- wavefront -dot- com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 10:01 AM

In our previous episode, Mark L. Levinson wrote:
>Georgia gives you readability on the screen
>at the expense of elegance on the page, by
>thickening what traditionally have been the
>thin strokes of the letters. It gives
>the printed page the look of overexposed
>phototypesetting. Livable, but heavyhanded.

Hmm. I find Georgia interesting because (to my eye) it looks
different on screen than it does when printed. I like both,
actually, but
I would never have recognized printed Georgia from on-screen

Previous by Author: RE: resumes
Next by Author: Re: Word/Weird
Previous by Thread: Re: re Looking for the right font
Next by Thread: RoboHelp topics displaying behind applicaton?

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads