W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 1996

Re: the alternative?

From: Tiro TypeWorks <tiro@portal.ca>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 14:29:29 -0700
Message-Id: <199608232122.OAA23662@kefron.portal.ca>
To: www-font@w3.org
Liam Quin wrote:

>For that matter, when you save the document and open it in Page Mill or
>HoTMetaL Pro, maybe you could get a similar `purchase opportunity' :-)

>    This document used fonts that are not on your system.
>    B&H Lucida Fax
>    Tiro 1520 Garamond
>     ...

Thanks for thinking of us, Liam, but you have no idea how awful 1520
Garamond looks as a browser font! This leads to another point that hasn't
been raised amid the technical discussions. What about fonts that are
simply, byt their design, unsuited for screen use? 1520 Garamond is a case
in point. If we were to manufacture a TT version heavily hinted for optimal
low-res reproduction at a wide range of sizes, we would completely destroy
the whole aesthetic purpose of the design. As it is, the font is next to
unreadable at 12pt onscreen -- it just about functions for laserprint
proofing purposes -- but it shines at 2400+ dpi. Now if the 'desktop
revolution' taught us anything, it is that there are hundreds of thousands
of 'users' out there just waiting to use fonts in the most inappopriate ways
possible. Even if a truly secure embedding scheme becomes a reality, I would
still apreciate the ability to prevent certain fonts from being embedded in
web pages, as they are simply inappropriate for the purpose and will remain
so until we have 2400 dpi screens. And, frankly, I don't give a fig for the
users' democratic right to perpetrate ugliness and unreadability.

John Hudson, Type Director

Tiro TypeWorks
Vancouver, BC
tiro@portal.ca
http://www.portal.ca/~tiro
Received on Friday, 23 August 1996 17:23:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:37 UTC