On 2008-01-28, 15:13 GMT, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> As you can see in  is that the fonts are looking just
> No we can't.
> I'm afraid that "looking better" is largely subjective when talking
> about fonts. In particular people exhibit a huge bias in favour of
> whatever font style they're used to. Take any decent modern font,
> force a user to use it exclusively for a month, and he'll
> systematically prefer it afterwards in tests. (hey, some people even
> ended up liking Luxi *shudder*)
Yes we can, kind of. Of course, that there is a lot of "nice is
what I am used to", but there is some real logic in it. One of
the thing which is not whimsical is that Times in its original
form was not meant to be a basic font for general use, but pretty
specific one -- i.e., to be used in typesetting newspapers. That
means pretty specific requirements, one of them is ability to fit
into pretty narrow columns which happen in newspapers. Therefore,
Times (and Times New Roman, and Liberation Serif) are much
narrower than what's considered general use fonts. Deja Serif
(and Palatino, Baskerville, Bembo, and many other fonts, which
are used in general typesetting as a basic, Czech typographers
call it bread, font) are slightly wider, and so more easy to read
(the optimal width of the line is known to be approx. 60
characters per line, Times unless patologically large -- that's
the reason, why people use so huge font sizes -- gives usually
much much more than that).
Note, that I am saying no word about Helvetica, Arial, Deja Sans,
or Courier, Courier New, Deja Sans Mono, even though even here
I prefer personally Deja ones. But that's my personal preference.
Times is inappropriate as a default font even from rational (or
semi-rational) point of view.