🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <32289@sri-unix.SRI.COM>
maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) writes:
> Yes, I know that TeX is great for equations, but I find Computer
> Modern to be a nonaesthetic typeface and hard to read in blocks of
> text (I'm an editor, so I do a lot of blocks-of-text-reading).
> It's too precious, too forced. I find the thick strokes on the letter bodies
> too thick and the letters in general too...wide...squat. Too much swash.
> It reminds me of a slightly awkward Bodoni heavy face.
> Look at Baskerville to see the difference, or Century or Caslon.
> They seem to be more open, more graceful. The letters "flow"
> better. Computer Modern gives me a headache, honest.

In reponse to Valerie's criticism about the Computer Modern Roman typeface,
I would like to make some of my own comments about CMR after making a
disclaimer:

I don't in any way, shape, or form, claim to be an expert in typography and
type design. I'm sure Valerie has much more experience in dealing with the
various aspects of readability and legiility than I have. However, some of
Valerie's criticism struck me as unduly harsh, and since reading CMR doesn't
give me headaches (many of my textbooks are in CMR), I would like to respond
to some of her complaints.


* Classifing CMR as "nonaesthetic" is harsh. Just because you don't like it
  doesn'it is "nonaesthetic." There are some typefaces I don't like
  very much like Goudy Old Style or ITC Cheltenham, but I wouldn't call
  either of those typefaces "nonaesthetic."

* I agree that CMR has a slight "picket-fence" texture, but putting it in
  the league of a Bodoni (especially a heavy face) is exaggerating a small
  problem (if it is a problem at all).

* I don't quite understand why Valerie thinks CMR is too wide. The lowercase
  letters are resonably proportioned in my opinion, and have a well-balanced
  x-height (unlike many of the typefaces from ITC). Some of the caps could
  use some slimming, but unless you are setting lines in all caps, that
  really isn't a big problem.

* I agree with Valerie that other typefaces are more graceful and "lively"
  than CMR. This however may not by such a drawback is some applications
  such as technical documents (for which TeX was designed), where individual 
  letter beauty is not a major concern.

* Equating "openess" and "flow" with improved readability can be dangerous.
  Century Schoolbook is very similar to CMR in that the characters are very
  regular with no quirks or flairs. However Century Schoolbook is considered
  one of the most readable (or legible depending on how you define those
  words) typefaces around.

* Finally, no real accurate tests of legibility or readability have been
  developed for typefaces. A typeface that may give one person a headache
  may read fine for another. As an example, because there are many geographic
  locations where people "read" sans-serif faces better than seriffed faces,
  some experts involved with the legibility aspects of typefaces feel that  
  how much somebody has been exposed to a particular typeface is the major 
  factor in determining how well somebody "reads" a particular typeface
  (This is a MAJOR disclaimer).


-Michael Wang

+--------------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Wang | Stanford University, Stanford, CA  94305                   |
|--------------+------------------------------------------------------------|
| ARPAnet, BITNET, CSNET, Internet:  mouser@portia.stanford.edu             |
| UUCP:  ...decwrl!portia.stanford.edu!mouser          AppleLink:  ST0064   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+