Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!shelby!portia!mouser From: mouser@portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Wang) Newsgroups: comp.text.desktop Subject: Re: Computer Modern and TeX Message-ID: <2634@portia.Stanford.EDU> Date: 1 Jun 89 10:16:01 GMT References: <32289@sri-unix.SRI.COM> Sender: Michael Wang Reply-To: mouser@portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Wang) Organization: Stanford University Lines: 68 In article <32289@sri-unix.SRI.COM> maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) writes: > Yes, I know that TeX is great for equations, but I find Computer > Modern to be a nonaesthetic typeface and hard to read in blocks of > text (I'm an editor, so I do a lot of blocks-of-text-reading). > It's too precious, too forced. I find the thick strokes on the letter bodies > too thick and the letters in general too...wide...squat. Too much swash. > It reminds me of a slightly awkward Bodoni heavy face. > Look at Baskerville to see the difference, or Century or Caslon. > They seem to be more open, more graceful. The letters "flow" > better. Computer Modern gives me a headache, honest. In reponse to Valerie's criticism about the Computer Modern Roman typeface, I would like to make some of my own comments about CMR after making a disclaimer: I don't in any way, shape, or form, claim to be an expert in typography and type design. I'm sure Valerie has much more experience in dealing with the various aspects of readability and legiility than I have. However, some of Valerie's criticism struck me as unduly harsh, and since reading CMR doesn't give me headaches (many of my textbooks are in CMR), I would like to respond to some of her complaints. * Classifing CMR as "nonaesthetic" is harsh. Just because you don't like it doesn'it is "nonaesthetic." There are some typefaces I don't like very much like Goudy Old Style or ITC Cheltenham, but I wouldn't call either of those typefaces "nonaesthetic." * I agree that CMR has a slight "picket-fence" texture, but putting it in the league of a Bodoni (especially a heavy face) is exaggerating a small problem (if it is a problem at all). * I don't quite understand why Valerie thinks CMR is too wide. The lowercase letters are resonably proportioned in my opinion, and have a well-balanced x-height (unlike many of the typefaces from ITC). Some of the caps could use some slimming, but unless you are setting lines in all caps, that really isn't a big problem. * I agree with Valerie that other typefaces are more graceful and "lively" than CMR. This however may not by such a drawback is some applications such as technical documents (for which TeX was designed), where individual letter beauty is not a major concern. * Equating "openess" and "flow" with improved readability can be dangerous. Century Schoolbook is very similar to CMR in that the characters are very regular with no quirks or flairs. However Century Schoolbook is considered one of the most readable (or legible depending on how you define those words) typefaces around. * Finally, no real accurate tests of legibility or readability have been developed for typefaces. A typeface that may give one person a headache may read fine for another. As an example, because there are many geographic locations where people "read" sans-serif faces better than seriffed faces, some experts involved with the legibility aspects of typefaces feel that how much somebody has been exposed to a particular typeface is the major factor in determining how well somebody "reads" a particular typeface (This is a MAJOR disclaimer). -Michael Wang +--------------+------------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael Wang | Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 | |--------------+------------------------------------------------------------| | ARPAnet, BITNET, CSNET, Internet: mouser@portia.stanford.edu | | UUCP: ...decwrl!portia.stanford.edu!mouser AppleLink: ST0064 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+