>> Yup. In print I can't think of a good reason to ever use boldface type
>> for emphasis. I think it's rare for designers to do this, but non-designers
>> do it all the time.
>Yeah. That's a big typographic no-no. The boldfaced words stand out too
>much and ruin the color and texture, like stains on your shirt.
>Still, I think there are times when boldfacing within paragraphs become
>advantageous, despite ruining the overall appearance and grace of your
>layout. What comes to mind is newspaper gossip columns, where you do
>want to boldface celebrity names, so your nosy readers can immediately
>hone in and devour.
>Design isn't everything. We're talking Hollywood.
While I haven't been following this thread closely, and thus may be off
base, if I'm reading this post right, it implies that only nice even color,
homogeneous typsetting, is 'design.' I would counter that it is only a nice
even, homogenous kind of design and that there are numerous situations
where introducing contrast within text is entirely appropriate, and, as
design is the process of rendering a message visually appropriate, that
using contrast, boldface or other, is still design. 'Hollywood' may bring a
negative image to mind to some typographers, but 'Hollywood', in addition
to being the source of much of our cultural visual iconography, may also,
on occasion, be the client.
Things ARE as they appear to be. And they are otherwise.