Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.94015FB4@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:10 +0100 Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.94015FB4" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: re: fontdef issues Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 00:12:00 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 509 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.94015FB4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I should like to support what Barbara Beeton (and possibly others) have said about the need for magsteps to produce magnified output. Support in LateX for straight magnified output is one thing for which there have been specific requests. This is because it is (at least with the present level of generally available prining technology) a straightforward way to obtain higher effective resolution. Print it big and then photo-reduce it. For these applications it is essential to have proper scaled fonts (as near as the resolution allows) and, at least in the European context, basing the magnifications on Knuth's "well-tempered magsteps" is just right: masgtep1 is the ratio of, for example, A4 to A5 paper (big to little sheets, for the uninitiated) and magstep 0.5 is the ratio of B3 to A4 paper (that one is for the initiates only). I am not sure how many magsteps would be reasonable to support such activities: probably 0.5, 1 and 2 are enough. I, personally, can see no call for magstep 5, anyway. OHP slides are another matter, and probably need different solutions, but my experience suggests that magnified fonts are quite effective here to. If you think of them as pages which happen to be rather big but a long way away then this would appear to justify magnified fonts. But such things are never so starightforward and probably different fonts are needed for different uses of slides. I use fonts at about 20-21pt (approx magstep 4). Here the "well-tempered system" is not necessary. On another point, I looked at the point sizes offered as "standard options" in some Postscript based systems: they are a truly bizarre collection of sizes, much like that quoted by Don H (from memory). If that is standard typesetting practice in some cultures, then I pity the poor designers who have to work under such constraints. Surely we can offer tham something better. My sources "in the trade" dont think that there is any such thing as standard sizes, "different fonts look good in different sizes, and one printer's `Monotype Times at 10pt' is sufficiently different in size to the same font from another printer for such an idea to be unrealistic". A case of "suck it and see". I have probably muddied the waters enough now, I should stop. chris ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.94015FB4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: re: fontdef issues

I should like to support what Barbara Beeton (and = possibly others)
have said about the need for magsteps to produce = magnified output.

Support in LateX for straight magnified output is one = thing for which
there have been specific requests.  This is = because it is (at least
with the present level of generally available prining = technology) a
straightforward way to obtain higher effective = resolution.  Print it
big and then photo-reduce it.

For these applications it is essential to have proper = scaled fonts (as
near as the resolution allows) and, at least in the = European context,
basing the magnifications on Knuth's = "well-tempered magsteps" is just
right:  masgtep1 is the ratio of, for example, = A4 to A5 paper (big to
little sheets, for the uninitiated) and magstep 0.5 = is the ratio of
B3 to A4 paper (that one is for the initiates = only).

I am not sure how many magsteps would be reasonable to = support such
activities: probably 0.5, 1 and 2 are enough.  = I, personally, can see
no call for magstep 5, anyway.

OHP slides are another matter, and probably need = different solutions,
but my experience suggests that magnified fonts are = quite effective
here to.  If you think of them as pages which = happen to be rather big
but a long way away then this would appear to justify = magnified
fonts.  But such things are never so = starightforward and probably
different fonts are needed for different uses of = slides.

I use fonts at about 20-21pt (approx magstep 4).  = Here the
"well-tempered system" is not = necessary.

On another point, I looked at the point sizes offered = as "standard
options" in some Postscript based systems: they = are a truly bizarre
collection of sizes, much like that quoted by Don H = (from memory).
If that is standard typesetting practice in some = cultures, then I pity
the poor designers who have to work under such = constraints.  Surely we
can offer tham something better.   My = sources "in the trade" dont
think that there is any such thing as standard = sizes,

"different fonts look good in different sizes, = and one printer's
`Monotype Times at  10pt' is sufficiently = different in size to the
same font from another  printer for such an idea = to be unrealistic".
A case of "suck it and  see".

I have probably muddied the waters enough now, I = should stop.


chris

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.94015FB4--