Wed Mar 12 20:53:57 CET 2003
> Following your example of inappropriate type faces, would a template
> offer recommended type faces? Would other graphical elements be
> incorporated, such as styles for graphics and tables?
yes ^ 10
I have some books on typography that just have page after page
showing what different typefaces look like when set with different point
size/leadings and set in different measures.
The funny thing is that the "old style" books (pre DTP) were full of
notes like "ITC Gothic Franklin" looks best in 24 pica columns when
set 8.5/11 ... etc. - seeing these layed out next to each other in
different combinations of Point size/Leading and in different measures
is quite instructive.
I imagine making different templates where I explicitly choose the
basic Font/point size/leading/measure and what fonts to use for
displays etc. - this is after all, what a newspaper does. I thought to
start just by copying a normal newspaper design.
That and a ruler and squared paper is all I need - oh and a pencil
and rubber, we're talking high tech here - after all, saying that a
frame should be 30 picas width is an infinitely precise measure - much
better than vaguely indicating the position with a mouse.
I'd also try to make templates with fonts that look nice when
printed - one reason why people make crappy documents is, I think,
because they spend ages fiddling with the document to make it look
nice on the screen and then just assume that it will look nice on
Typefaces with very delicate serifs can look beautiful when printed
on a decent printer, but will always look crap on a low resolution
screen since the serifs just vanish - I assume this is why we are
subjected to "Ariel" everywhere (because it looks nice on screen) -
Garamond on the other hand looks worse on screen but much nicer on
paper - which is when we rarely see it on paper.
IMHO one should edit in EMACS and tell the system what font to use -
if you actually *see* the font while editing it's either too big or
too small so you have to fiddle with the "zoom" controls all the time
to even see what you are editing - Thus I consider "content" to be
something that is created in EMACS and stored in a data base of file
system - and layout to be decided purely on the basis of what looks
nice when it is printed *Not* on what looks nice when you are editing
> Maybe going *slower* would improve things? Taking time to polish would
> do wonders to the result. But we're all racing to produce stuff too
> quickly I think.
Well in the good 'ol days at least 4 people were involved in book
- the author (who hand wrote, or typed the manuscript)
- the typesetter
- the proof reader
- the editor
All these were highly skilled at their own jobs - it took about 6 years
to become good at typesetting.
Now the author (who knows precious little about layout and typography)
has to do it all - no wonder quality is dropping.
More information about the erlang-questions