Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!agate!ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!unify!openlook!openlook-request
From: merlyn@attunix.att.com
Newsgroups: comp.windows.open-look
Subject: Re: Lucida, and the OPEN LOOK Functional Specification
Message-ID: <2i8yqz8@openlook.Unify.Com>
Date: 15 Nov 90 01:04:00 GMT
Lines: 32

> What is the general feeling about using a non-Lucida font in OPEN LOOK
> UI items, especially a non-Lucida font that conforms to the spec, i.e.
> is sans-serif and variable width?

I believe in a consistent look for the whole display (not just
for each application). Consistency, though, does not necessarily
mean bit-for-bit sameness. You should feel free to use a font that
makes sense for your particular needs.

There are obvious places where *any* font must be allowed, e.g.
desktop publishing applications. In places where the font is not
critical, it should ``work well'' with the fonts used similarly
in other applications. For instance, the fonts found in buttons
should be similar across all applications, otherwise users may
think the button with the odd font has a peculiar function.
However, this rule of thumb does not require bit-for-bit identical
fonts. The spec. says sans serif, mainly because mixing serifs
with sans serifs will likely present the user with a mix that
confuses.

Note that on most displays today, the difference between various
sans serif fonts at 12 pts isn't major. But note further that
slant and weight typically will present a noticeable difference,
and should be used carefully.

Bottom line: If you think you need to use a non-Lucida sans serif
font, try it and see how it looks with other applications using
the Lucida font.

Steve Humphrey
UNIX System Laboratories
merlyn@attunix.att.com