Font choices & prices (was Re: [clue-tech] gimp fonts for [printed] graphics)

[Roy J. Tellason]

On Thursday 23 December 2004 03:32 pm, Jed S. Baer wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:35:51 -0700
>
> Matt Gushee wrote:
> > These technical differences tend to be more important for running text,
> > and good hinting and spacing really help to make the text readable. You
> > can't judge quality in this sense by looking at font samples, and
> > ordinary readers don't judge it consciously at all--but it will
> > certainly affect their impression of a document, even if they can't
> > explain why.
>
> There's another piece to this. I recall reading, in a design article some
> time ago, that in general, print (as in manuscripts, rather than posters)
> is better done in a serif typeface, and video in sans-serif. The article
> talked about the role of serifs in eyeball fuction, or something like
> that. In general, I find that to be true. Particulary with the computer
> display end, rather than the print end. But maybe that's the result of
> having poorly hinted serif fonts on my machine?
>
> jed

Maybe.  I would tend to disagree with that anyhow,  as I have a serif font for 
most of my display functions in both machines,  in text consoles and in X.

I had a friend (now gone,  unfortunately) who at one time was responsible for 
doing something with contracts for some state agency,  Fish Commission I 
think it was.  Told me one time that if you have paragraphs with different 
fonts,  the eye tends to slide over sans-serif stuff faster and retain less 
of what it saw than if serif fonts were used.  And he used this to his 
advantage...