Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!csus.edu!ucdavis!csusac!unify!openlook!openlook-request From: sane!genmri!doug@crdgw1.ge.com (Doug Becker) Newsgroups: comp.windows.open-look Subject: Lucida, and the OPEN LOOK Functional Specification Message-ID: Date: 14 Nov 90 03:26:15 GMT Lines: 36 Having determined that the default XView font is too small for our application's needs, I'm investigating other fonts as candidates for use in our application's user interface elements. I was surprised to find that the OPEN LOOK Functional Specification appears to be quite lenient in terms of font selection for UI items. In particular, the only relevant passage appears to be on page 5 (Chapter 1), under Fonts: "A sans serif, variable width font is used for the common elements of the OPEN LOOK UI. Consistent use of the same font in all the elements of the interface contributes to the design concept of the interface as a backdrop against which the application is featured. Of course, an application can use whatever fonts the developer chooses in the part of the window that is reserved for the display of application information." I had always been under the vague impression that the Lucida font was part of the OPEN LOOK functional spec; apparently this is incorrect, as the spec seems to indicate that any sans-serif, variable-width font is acceptable. Fonts don't appear to be mentioned to any meaningful degree at all in the Application Style Guidelines. Of course, many (if not all) the other OPEN LOOK applications I've seen appear to use the Lucida font, and I agree that consistency across applications is desirable. However, our particular circumstances may preclude the use of Lucida at this time. 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? -- Douglas H. Becker doug@nmri.GE.COM {somewhere}!crdgw1.GE.COM!sane!doug