On 22 Oct 2006 at 15:41, Darcy James Argue wrote: > I *hate* numbers with ascenders and descenders. It's just an instant, > visceral "ugh." They may be more legible (though I don't know if > there's data on this -- people often use "legible" as shorthand for > "what I like"), but I think they look ugly as sin.
But it's the numbers *without* descenders, and that all have the same width that are the aberration in the history of typesetting, because they were created for computer use, so you type columns of numbers in your word processing documents and have then line up. I don't know what traditional typesetting did for that. I presume they had special numbers for columnar layouts that were not used except in columnar layouts, and the regular variable-width numbers with descenders were used everywhere else. I'm just the opposite of Darcy. I think the traditional numbers are much, much more attractive than the modern fixed-width ones without descenders. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
