Re: Fonts

[Michael Norman michael.norman@xxxxxxxx]

At 2/4/2004 10:27 PM +0000, billtroop@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>  Unless you absolutely require a monospace font, I would
> stick with the Sans and the Mix.


Bill, I'm simply looking for a readable (all day) screen font to use in WIN
apps, particularly Nota Bene. After several years of using Uwe Sieber's
incredibly readable screen fonts (for Dos Boxes)
(http://www.uwe-sieber.de/english.html), I wanted something that looked
similar, or, at least, felt the same. de Groot's monospaced fonts, as they
are represented at the FontShop site
(http://www.fontshop.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=catalog.home&CFID=739917&CFTOKEN=2a626a89b29c2e55-0F76609A-D372-C2AC-F45ED1A0E6F10B94)
seem as if they might be a good substitute for Sieber's. I know programmers
like monospaced fonts so their columns line up. And I thought Sieber's
kerning was monospaced, or, de Groot's monos looked like Sieber's. (This is
so damn subjective.) But I bought Bitstream's Prima Sans (a sharper
Verdana) and I can work in it. de Groot's Sans and Mix look even better to
my untrained eye. All I was wondering was this: would it be easier on the
eyes to stare at his monos all day or his plain Sans or Mix? The samples
don't give you much of a sense.


> Some of his fonts have very highly optimized
> hinting for the screen most particularly in the TT versions. I forget which
> ones but you can easily email him and find out if you consider that important
> (I don't and would always use the Postscript versions for any number of
> reasons).


Why Postscript?

And many thanks for the other suggestions. I'll certainly take a look. Your
posts are primers.


michael.norman@xxxxxxxx