[OT] proportional fonts (was Re: Asking if elements ...)

From: Chris Torek (nospam_at_elf.eng.bsdi.com)
Date: 11/08/03 

Date: 7 Nov 2003 19:12:45 -0700

>Programmer Dude <Chris@Sonnack.com> writes:
>> Formatted, proportionally-spaced fonts are *E*A*S*I*E*R to read.
>> Repeat: eas***>>>IER<<<***
>>
>> Not "easy". EASIER.

In article <ksad77hh5o.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> wrote:
>Yes, yes, I understand.

As do I. But I contend that this claim is actually *wrong*!

More precisely, it is insufficient.

Proportional fonts printed at high resolutions (several thousand
dpi) have been found to be easier to read when printed on paper.

Proportional fonts (mis)displayed on low-resolution, typically 75
and up to perhaps 100 dpi, computer screens have not been shown to
be easier to read. As I understand it, studies conflict, but still
lean towards "fixed-width fonts are easier to read".

>I read the words. My response was not intended to directly refute
>what you wrote; I was commenting further on it. To be clear, I don't
>disagree with your assertion that variable-width text text (as we see
>in books, magazines, most web sites, etc.) is typically easier to read
>than fixed-width text. What I dispute is the relevance of that fact
>to Usenet.

Even on web sites, I find the variable-width fonts rather klunky.
Some of the better rendering engines, combined with antialiased
fonts of sufficient sizes, do a better job, making it about as
readable as fixed-width text. But there remain a number of stumbling
blocks, including people whose web pages are designed for very low
resolution (e.g., 640 x 480) displays -- I use 1600x1200 on this
screen, and 1920x1200 on my Mac, and have found Mozilla's "ignore
the web page's tiny-size-font requests" feature invaluable. Text
meant to be shown at (say) 9 points, but actually rendered at the
equivalent of approximately 5 points, is quite eye-straining.

When (and I use the word "when" because I believe "if" is incorrect)
we have 300+ dpi computer displays -- preferably wall-size, say
around 40,000 by 30,000 or so pixels -- *then* it may be time to
move to proportional fonts. :-) (Maybe the wall-size screen ratio
should be 16:9 rather than 4:3.)

>Just about every single technical manual, book, or magazine I've ever
>read was produced by professionals.

(Well, there was "Wired" magazine. :-) )

>Just about every Usenet posting I've ever read was not.

Indeed. I suspect far too many would look like, well, "Wired"
magazine... 

-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W)  +1 801 277 2603
email: forget about it   http://67.40.109.61/torek/index.html (for the moment)
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.