Re: Font Selection Methodology

[Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- jci -dot- com]

>> Obsess
>> about facts; obsess about illustrations; obsess about clear
presentation.
>> Fonts aren't worth more than a minute or two.
>
>They certainly are if you are preparing camera-ready copy,
>or type for the Web. "Clear presentation" means visual
>coherence, and type setting is part of that.

"Clear presentation" means presenting the information clearly, in terms of
words and illustrations which make sure that tab A will always be inserted
into Slot B rather than Hole C. It doesn't mean anything in terms of
typesetting except non-blurred printing and type large enough to be read.
That certainly doesn't take anything more than minutes to determine, and
probably seconds is more likely.

>> My faves? Baskerville, GillSans, and Caslon, in that order. But that's
only
>> relevant if the site style manual doesn't say otherwise.
>
>It's also relevant only if you specify the setting, not just
>the name of the typeface.

I *did* mention that the size had to be readable, even though you chose not
to quote it.

>See? Not so simple.

Seems simple to me. Select a typeface and size you find readable. If that
task takes anyone more than 5 minutes, I'd be amazed.

>For proof,
>look around on the Web and see how many pages
>fail the test of "clear presentation" because of
>incompetent use of type.

Very few, I suspect (in fact, I can't call a single example to mind as I
write this; there are so *many* bad websites that I'm sure some must be bad
simply because of typography, but I can't think of a single example). Most
of the bad web sites are bad because of incompetent use of the language.
Many fail because the designer can't tell the difference between a CRT
screen and a piece of paper. That has nothing to do with typography, and
everything to do with flexibility and attitude.

Dreck, typeset elegantly and published perfectly, is still dreck. And dreck
is the enemy of the techwriter. As an exercise in setting priorities for
the task at hand: Is it more important to find the right words to
accurately describe the process, or to present the words in the perfect
font? OK, now that we've established that, we know where we can reap the
largest ROI for time invested, right? The penalty for less-than-perfect
font choices is far less than the penalty for less-than-perfect word
choices.

Oh, I can imagine specific niches where this choice becomes worthy of more
time: someone mentioned a need for lettering to be read tactilely, for
example. So for those instances, because you know your audience
requirements, you know where the ROI lies. That's what? .01% of the market?
Someone who needs to read an ordinary printed book tactilely will probably
be using braille, with a completely different set of challenges than the
other readers, and also nearly completely incompatible.

Have fun,
Arlen
Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department
DNRC 224

Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- Com
----------------------------------------------
In God we trust; all others must provide data.
----------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.
If JCI had an opinion on this, they'd hire someone else to deliver it.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you using Doc-to-Help or ForeHelp? Switch to RoboHelp for Word for $249
or to RoboHelp Office for only $499. Get the PC Magazine five-star rated
Help authoring tool for less! Go to http://www.ehelp.com/techwr

Free copy of ARTS PDF Tools when you register for the PDF
Conference by April 30. Leading-Edge Practices for Enterprise
& Government, June 3-5, Bethesda,MD. www.PDFConference.com

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.