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.
>If you're really picky about appearances, then you'll need to stick not only
>with fonts of the same name, but fonts from the same foundry. Something I
>discovered not too long ago was that Times from Adobe (Type 1) had entirely
>different kerning and leading characteristics that Times from either Apple or
>Microsoft (both True Type in this case). In the case of Times, the differences
>were significant enough to be unusable even if you're not picky (it turned a
>one-page brochure into a two-page disaster).
You can help this process along by intentionally choosing a font that is
only available from one foundry. That way, there will be no subtle font
substitutions, such as the Times-for-Times substitutions discussed above.
I am a great fan of Adobe Sabon, which can be used anywhere one might use
Times-Roman. It's only available from Adobe, is a much more attractive,
old-style font than Times-Roman, and was designed to work well on laser
printers as well as photo-typesetters.
I did a test of a number of fonts (a Caslon, a Garamond, Goudy OldStyle,
Times-Roman, and Sabon -- all from Adobe). I printed out test pages on
phototypesetters and laser printers. Sabon was INFINITELY better on
laser printer output -- it looked great at 300 dpi, while the others,
including Times-Roman, looked very shabby by comparison. All of them
looked great on phototypesetter output, of course.