On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:15:42 +1000, "Jean Hollis Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Gary Schnabl wrote: > > > > The beauty to using styles is they can be easily tweaked in just a > > minute or so. Changing fonts or colors from one to another, including > > simple black, is a no-brainer. But, using a different style > > subconsciously informs the reader that a stepped procedure or what-not > > is coming, etc. In addition, having a different style for print versus a > > monitor (using color for the latter) better utilizes the use of color. > > B/W for print; color otherwise. > > With our books, people will download the PDF and print from it. > So they will get color or b/w depending on their printer. > > > ... I doubt that the printed versions of anything today would be > > chosen over other media. The percentage of the population who purchase > > books is quite low, but that low percentage sure buy a lot of books > > among them. > > See above about our audience. Those who purchase the printed > version from Lulu (a very small percentage) will get b/w. > > > I'm not sure about how Garamond is treated on computers today versus 15 > > years ago. The Macs used them then, but I'm not sure about Garamond's > > lack of availability today. It's one of the nicer fonts, even when bolded. > > It is a nice font, but mixing too many fonts is IMO not good. > Your "visual cues" might be my "visual pollution". > > Cheers, Jean
I would like to suggest that in many cases the user is not likely to print the PDFs. I may be wrong but in my own case I never print out the PDF's, except perhaps 2-3 times when editing. I have tried using Garamond; on the printed page it is a very nice font. However, to me, it is significantly more difficult to read on the screen and since I read the guides on the screen I would not favour changing. ----- John Kane Kingston ON Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] (613) 888-2399 -- http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html
