hy not make a vote? Attached are two screenshots, one with Vera >>> bold, >>> one with Vera normal, both on Linux, both on pd-extended 0.40. >>> >>> Which do you prefer? >>> >>> [ ] normal.png >>> [ ] bold.png >>>
1) i vote normal, the bold looks way too heavy to me. reading the comment text in bold makes my eyes spaz. > Yeah, things look bad in those screenshots. I am not sure of Frank's > setup. I'll do more testing on GNU/Linux. Also, those PNGs are an > odd format (16bit?) so they were behaving strangely on my computer. > I converted them to gifs and they look better. Also, I have added > some screenshots from Mac OS X, where the fonts are anti-aliased: > > http://pow.idmi.poly.edu/~hans/pdfonts/ > *File not found!* The URL you have loaded has not been found on this server. Please alert the system administrator if you believe you have reached this in error. > Since there is obviously some demand for bold fonts, I added a new > flag that allows you to set the font weight from the command line or > pd-settings file. The flag is "-weight" and it expects either "bold" > or "normal". Also, for those who don't like Bitstream Vera Sans > Mono, there is the "-typeface" flag. Should be in tomorrows auto- > builds. > won't this make the patches render at different sizes depending on your choice of font? so now if i want to open frank's GOP patchs and have them render right i have to remember to turn on the bold flag, which then makes all my patches render wrong? -josh -- ________________________________________________________________ tasty electronic music vittles -- bluevitriol.com the only music blog you need -- playtherecords.com you are the dj. interactive music -- improbableorchestra.com random observations of the bizarre -- vitriolix.com _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list