Owen wrote: >> Craig Bradney wrote: >>> On Thursday 11 September 2008 21:19:34 Nigel Ridley wrote: > >> I just opened my 'test' PDF and noticed that the 'fonts' are now an >> image and can't be selected >> as text (that's good in one respect - no one can copy the text into a >> text editor and reuse it - >> kind of like an imbeded copyright). >> The downside is that the 'text' loses some of it's quality - it's not >> 'sharp' anymore. >> >>> Embed dumps the font file into the PDF for reuse by the reader >>> software. One >>> day we will also have subset where only the use glyphs will be >>> included. >> Will this keep the quality of the text as sharp as 'embed'? > > > Who is the intended audience?
email recipients - some older folks (with [probably] poor eye-sight ;-) ) > > What does it look like? Can you tell the difference? I'm not so old, and with my reading glasses on.... yes, I can see the difference - but then I _know_ that there is a difference! > > On what are you looking at it? Laptop. > > > Owen > The font used is 'Times New Roman' (it looks really good when printed), but doesn't look that wonderful on screen. Perhaps I need another 'layer' with a [good] font for the email [computer screen] version. Got a suggestion for something that looks good and clean on screen (and has similar size rendering as New Times Roman, so that I won't have to adjust the layout of the text and graphics too much)? Blessings, Nigel --
