Path: utzoo!dciem!trigraph!john
From: john@trigraph.UUCP (John Chew)
Newsgroups: comp.text.desktop
Subject: Re: Compressed face recommendations?
Message-ID: <456@trigraph.UUCP>
Date: 18 May 89 20:14:42 GMT
References: <30962@apple.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: poslfit@gpu.utcs.UToronto.CA (John Chew)
Organization: Trigraph Inc., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 30

In article <30962@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>I'm currently using Times Roman as the best compromise for small (9pt)
>faces, but I'm thinking something like Helvetica Compressed might allow me
>to squeeze the text a little more. Any suggestions on how to get the most
>text on the fewest pages without turning it into a useless document?

While Helvetica Condensed or Helvetica Compressed are infinitely
more readable than that abhomination Helvetica Narrow, I still
find that reading large amounts of body text set in either makes
me wish that the cost-readability tradeoff had been pushed a bit
further toward higher readability.  They are condensed typefaces
and have a condensed appearance: they don't look like real typefaces
to me.

And though I dislike it in larger (>= 12 pt) sizes, there's nothing
like Lucida Sans for retention of readability at really tiny (<9 pt)
sizes.  I have put out a reference card in Lucida Sans 5/6 pt with
only a few obligatory remarks from its readers about microscopes.
I would suggest Lucida Sans 7/8 pt for the body text of a newsletter
where space is a main concern.  Lucida Sans Italic is also acceptable
at extremely small sizes, though the Bold and Bold Italic styles
suffer.  Beware too that the serifs on Lucida itself are not handled
very well at small sizes.

John

-- 
john j. chew, iii   		  phone: +1 416 425 3818     AppleLink: CDA0329
trigraph, inc., toronto, canada   {uunet!utai!utcsri,utgpu,utzoo}!trigraph!john
dept. of math., u. of toronto     poslfit@{utorgpu.bitnet,gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca}