Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: net.text Subject: Re: embedded-command text systems Message-ID: <6214@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Tue, 10-Dec-85 17:20:30 EST Article-I.D.: utzoo.6214 Posted: Tue Dec 10 17:20:30 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 10-Dec-85 17:20:30 EST References: <471@harvard.ARPA> <773@mmintl.UUCP> <734@tpvax.fluke.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 26 > Incidentally, they do not call laser printer output "typeset material." The > discernable resolution and poor kerning is still too crude, in their opinion. > To us computer types, used to crummy dot-matrix output, it looks great. To > the professional typographer, the one with the 20X loupe magnifier in his > shirt pocket, it is simply amusing. To those of us who read text *without* using a 20X loupe magnifier, this manic concern with how text looks when a page is blown up to the size of a football field is simply amusing. Yes, I'm aware that readability can be affected by subtle issues, and that the 20X loupe can help you spot such problems, but professional typographers have a tendency to push this far beyond the point of diminishing returns. 300/inch laser printers will not replace typesetting machines, but they're going to steal a lot of the typesetting-machine market. Unless it is pointed out to them most explicitly, most users can see the difference only with poor fonts or difficult jobs. Which means that most users will accept 300/inch as adequate for most jobs. They don't feel that the increment of quality gained by going to real typesetting is worth the hassle and expense, barring the occasional job where maximum quality is an explicit objective. (Obviously I am talking about competently-"laserset" documents printed using good fonts, not about the typical output of MacWrite enthusiasts.) -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry