(no subject)

[alg]

FOLLOW THE RULES: an article on following the rules of the playground -- because if you don't, we won't let you play in the sandbox.

Comments

[janni.livejournal.com]

Most of the folks I know who hate standard ms fonts--and the reaction was stronger when Courier was the only acceptable option--couldn't seem to get past the fact that the ms looks so bad to them in that font. When how it looks to them doesn't matter--it's whether it looks OK to the person reading it.

But then, I never really minded Courier. It'd be a dreadful book font, but an ms isn't a book, and those couple years typing before I discovered word processing (and finished a college paper before midnight, and never looked back!) were just enough to make it something I could deal with looking at.

[alg.livejournal.com]

Exactly -- there's a reason why there's a difference between ms. fonts, screen fonts, and book fonts. (Actually, a lot of books are just being done in Times New Roman these days, and no one seems to care.)

[janni.livejournal.com]

If it were just about good screen fonts, Verdana would be the way to go. :-) (Am actually liking Verdana more and more printed, too--but it's real strength is still on screen.)

Actually, a lot of books are just being done in Times New Roman these days, and no one seems to care.

Now that makes me a little grumpy. It's not that good a font, to my eye--and these days, it looks like someone just dashed things in it off on their computer, unless it's done really well.

[dancinghorse.livejournal.com]

I loathe Times New Roman. It makes my head hurt. It's tiny and squishy and hard to read.

Courier is much easier to work with on mss. Big and open and full of spaces to write corrections in.

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

::sheds a wistful tear for Garamond and Palatino and Caslon Old Face::