References: <v03110708b284734efb3a@[130.237.37.82]>
            <13918.48084.843833.165507@srahtz>
            <v03110700b28463a34cb9@[130.237.37.53]>
            <v03110700b2843ef12198@[130.237.37.149]>
            <199811262254.IAA20689@bigted.maths.uq.edu.au>
            <v03110700b28463a34cb9@[130.237.37.53]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID:  <v0311070bb2848c69e201@[130.237.37.82]>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <4.1.19981127104934.03e184f0@pop.tiac.net>
Date:         Fri, 27 Nov 1998 18:20:33 +0100
From: Hans Aberg <haberg@MATEMATIK.SU.SE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: What is "base" LaTeX
Status: R

At 10:53 -0500 1998/11/27, Y&Y, Inc. wrote:
>Then don't use them for this purpose.  Lucida was the first font family
>designed exactly to address the issue of readability in a digital world.
>In any case, people used CM (which is thin) happily for many years on
>300 dpi printers.  And properly hinted `hyper fine' fonts don't have a
>problem at low res either...

My guess is that this is when the audio CD was introduced, and some claimed
that the old analog vinyl sounded better, wheas most other people found it
hard to ever lkisten at the vinyl anymopre due to the poor sound quality.

>>>how does this follow at all? are you telling me you cannot read 24pt
>>>Lucida New Math on screen?
>
>>Believe it or not, 24pt Lucida New Math is not convenient for displaying
>>math formulas: One should use 10 pt, and regardless how you magnify it to
>>see the details, necessary in math as a tiny dot usually means something
>>different than something quite close to a dot, it is not very convenient.
>
>I am not sure what you are saying here, but you may be caught in the straight-
>jacket of browsers (which cannot magnify).  Acrobat Reader provides for
>on screen magnification.  Sebastian's example of 24pt  LNM --  in my reading

>stands for 10pt LNM zoomed to 240% on screen.

I think that Sebastian Rahtz claimed that better computer screens was
wholly unnecessary because one simply typesets them in 24 pt instead.

To me it sounds as though he never has tried to read a math manuscript: If
the formulas are typeset in 24 pt, so shall the text too, of course,
otherwise the graphics get out of proportions. But then one can just
typeset it in say 10 pt and magnify it 240% when reading, which gives the
same effect. However, this is not very convenient when trying to read those
manuscripts, even though it is workable.

One needs to also take into account that people tend to have a fixed
reading distance (of about 20-25 cm, I think), so a magnified (or larger
sized) font is not read the same as a non-magnified font.

Besides, one may wander what formulas Sebatsian thinks can be displayed in
its completeness at 24 pt on say a 14" powerbook screen -- probably not a
very large one.

So screens should really be improved before one can properly display math
formulas in a WWW manuscript.

  Hans Aberg
                  * Email: Hans Aberg <mailto:haberg@member.ams.org>
                  * Home Page: <http://www.matematik.su.se/~haberg/>
                  * AMS member listing: <http://www.ams.org/cml/>