- From: Todd <fahrner@pobox.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 19:48:09 -0800
- To: tiro@portal.ca (Tiro TypeWorks), www-font@w3.org
At 14:29 -0700 8/23/96, Tiro TypeWorks wrote: >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. What if it's at 14-point on a 180-dpi display with anti-aliasing, for an effective resolution superior to that of some print? Such displays are not so far off, even very cheaply with high-contrast cholesteric liquid crystal displays now in labs. The tortuous hinting requirements imposed by low-res 1-bit displays are a passing problem. Between ATM 4 and Win95's services, I'm confident that a year from now system-level anti-aliasing will be commonplace for all who appreciate it (and increasingly for those who don't know the difference). Even at 72 dpi, good anti-aliasing makes for appreciable differences between the letterforms of, say, Simoncini and Stempel Garamond at text sizes. I daresay that among those who care about type today, a great many have developed their sensibilities more through the CRT than the printed page. I can still remember realizing with some surprise (and sadness) that Hermann Zapf would probably not even recognize Palatino from Adobe's 12-point bitmap. (I'm sure he'd have no trouble spotting an immaculately anti-aliased knockoff version, however.) I think the larger issue is where an artist's performance ends and a subject's reception begins. There's no insurmountable impediment for a sensitive subject, and - do what you will - no sure help for an insensitive one, not even 4800 dpi. If you were a musician, would you refuse to let your performances be recorded for fear that somebody might listen with a cheap radio? Wouldn't that make you more calligrapher than type designer? ________________________________________ Todd Fahrner mailto:fahrner@pobox.com http://www.verso.com The printed page transcends space and time. The printed page, the infinitude of books, must be transcended. THE ELECTRO-LIBRARY. --El Lissitzky, 1923
Received on Friday, 23 August 1996 22:43:57 UTC