On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Taco Hoekwater <[email protected]> wrote: > The thing is: the profound level of unnoticeable that came out of the > statistical tests for font expansion nullifies the 'improving the > visual appearance' goal. Wholly unnoticed improvements are not > actually improvements at all.
I doubt that. First of all, how much text was used in the comparisons? I know that the impression from reading a single paragraph is quite different from reading a whole book. Then, I still disagree with your statement. There are many subtleties in, for example, Shakespeare that 99% of readers will miss, but which, when explained in footnotes, will be quite interesting for them and which contribute to the perception of Shakespeare as a great poet. Depth does not have to be obvious, but the knowledge that it's there - even if you don't notice it yourself until pointed - can make a work more enjoyable. Finally, there's a purely pragmatic aspect. Even if we disregard human perception, microtypography can result in denser typesetting and thus less paper spent on printing a book. -- bulia byak Inkscape. Draw Freely. http://www.inkscape.org
