Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!cmcl2!phri!marob!slhisc!jlister
From: jlister@slhisc.uucp (John Lister)
Newsgroups: comp.fonts
Subject: Re: Economist article on Ecotype typeface design
Message-ID: <1991Jun7.152116.15777@slhisc.uucp>
Date: 7 Jun 91 15:21:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: slhisc.1991Jun7.152116.15777
References: <4lsh!qd@rpi.edu>
Organization: Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Lines: 22

In article <4lsh!qd@rpi.edu> wrf@mab.ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin) writes:
>
>The May 24-31 issue of The Economist has a 2 page article on the design
>of their new typeface -- Ecotype.  It was done with PostScript.  Two
>major requirements were these: 
>
[...]

A most frustrating article--it only told half the story!  What I wanted to 
know was why do they *fax* the printed output?  If they now use PostScript,
why not send that, then print it locally (either on an imagesetter if it's
the final output, or on a laser if they're going to edit it further (or even
the source from whatever page makeup they use...)).

Irrelevant aside:  I also am curious about how the various editions of the
Economist differ.  From casual comparison of a copy on a newsstand in London
airport with my (US printed) subscription copy, there appear to be the same
articles in a different order, with different advertising, but do I really see
the same Economist as the man on the Clapham omnibus?

John Lister.
jlister@isc.shearson.com