[mythtv-users] A new theme on the way...

[Mike Perkins]

Robert McNamara wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:38 PM, David Asher <asherml at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The question I haven't seen asked yet, and am admittedly quite curious
>> about: what makes a quality font?
>>
>> I'd be interested to know what characteristics of the font you've chosen
>> make it so desirable.
>>
> 
> Well, to establish this right off the bat:  Adrian Frutiger is one of
> the typographical geniuses of the last hundred years.  Few if any
> typographers have had as much impact in the 20th century.  Frutiger
> (the font) itself is a masterpiece in a number of ways.  The big ones
> are extreme readability, and absolutely masterful kerning (the "fit"
> of letters around each other in context).  The ascenders (extensions
> upwards) and descenders (extensions downwards) like on the letters "g"
> and "y" are quite clear and unique from one another, improving the
> legibility.  More generally, the rendering of professional fonts
> themselves is generally better because of (by and large) closer
> attention to detail.  The sum total of all of this is that it all just
> "feels" better when reading/using it.
> 
I always understood from the early days of computing on screens (rather than 
e.g. teletypes) that on-screen typefaces required different characteristics to 
those used for the printed medium. I do understand that attempts are continually 
made (wrongly, IMHO) to make the display resemble a sheet of paper, with 
variable results, but reading a TV from some yards away isn't like that.

I don't know that one can automatically assume that what worked perfectly 100 
years ago is necessarily entirely appropriate for today's usages. On the other 
hand, one should be able to profit from the lessons of the past.

-- 

Mike Perkins