On 2/12/2011 1:37 AM, Hal Parker wrote:
I haven't been closely following the details of the discussion on fonts,
arrows vs>, highlighting (italics, bold, etc), but I have some concerns to
note.
IMO the criterion should be: do the differences add GENUINE VALUE for the
user, so the changes are genuinely worth the time it takes for
writers/editors/reviewers to apply, check that they are applied correctly,
etc. "It looks good in PDF/print" is not, IMO, sufficient reason for doing
things, though it should be a positive side-effect.
"Keep it simple" has a lot to recommend it.
1) Time is saved in production, consistency of presentation is improved, and
writers can concentrate on content instead of appearance (applying character
styles).
2) Clean files can be output to a variety of media, including (but not
limited to) PDF, print, ePub, HTML, DAISY (Digital Accessible Information
System) talking books, braille. WE may not provide all those outputs, but
others may wish to use our files as source documents for them.
Hal
Be advised that there are both screen (displayed on a monitor) and
printer fonts (for actual printed docs). Their characters do not always
have the same dimensions or appearances for each type.
Thus, a PDF viewed on a monitor may appear different from its actual
printed copy. And if the viewer's computer system does not have the
actual typefaces employed in the PDF, the viewed PDF will have other
typefaces substituted for the absent typefaces.
Gary
--
Gary Schnabl
Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is...
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
