TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Bitmaps are so CRUDE From:Nancy Allison <maker -at- verizon -dot- net> To:techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com Date:Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:03:47 -0500 (CDT)
Oh, DARN, DARN, DARN.
I am using Verizon webmail. It automatically adopts the formatting of any email message I respond to, and then stays that way. I haven't found a way to set it to Plain Text as a default.
Therefore, if I create a new message and forget to switch it to Plain Text, it goes out as Rich Text and Techwr-l strips out the content. At least, I suppose that's how it happens.
I am only dealing with Verizon webmail for a little while longer . . .
I am truly sorry to clutter up your mailboxes with empty messages.
Yes, Bill, F-bombs and worse! Read on!
Hi, all. I need help understanding why the bitmap image of a character looks horrible. I thought images like PNG were supposed to zoom up and down cleanly.
Very short summary: My client's customers are around the world. There is no guarantee their systems have Unicode-compliant browsers and fonts. Their fonts may make substitutions that will make our specifications incomprehensible (mus may become ms, Omegas may become Os or Ws, and so on). I thought using a bitmap image for each symbol was the solution.
However . . . even taken at Framemaker 800% page size, each PNG looks sketchy in the .chm.
After manually thickening the degree symbol image pixel by pixel and displaying it, for example, it still looks like a dandelion puff when I open the .chm page. It looks like a mistake. This is unacceptable for our documentation.
What can I do to make those bitmap images look better?
(I know, I know, the only absolutely readable and certain solution (short of sending everyone in the world a browser and set of fonts and standing over them while they set everything up) is to spell the terms out. Very, very strong opposition to this solution, but if the bitmap solution doesn't work, I may have to bend everyone to my will . . . )
Any hard-won bitmap wisdom you may have gratefull accepted.
Help & Manual 5: The complete help authoring tool for individual
authors and teams. Professional power, intuitive interface. Write
once, publish to 8 formats. Multi-user authoring and version control! http://www.helpandmanual.com/
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-