At 9:04 AM -0800 01.3.8, Hrant H Papazian wrote:
> > every active/serious/employed *print-publication* designer I've
> > ever met uses Macs
> But I'm talking about on-screen type technology, . . .
> When it comes to addressing the reading a lot of text
> on-screen, you have to target Joe Shmoe, on Windows 98.
I, too, am thinking of on-screen type technology. Since we've been told
that in much of Asia, at least, the LCD (lowest common denominator) is
likely to be older than Windows 98 and have a rather antiquated CTR
display, we try to deliver projects that work satisfactorily on everything
from old MSDOS & Wintel platforms to current Mac platforms.
My immediate concern is how the evolving on-screen type technology (and
potential cross-platform issues) is likely to affect our ability to
repurpose clients' print publications as high-fidelity PDFs. Though
masterly hinted screen fonts are potentially very attractive, (1) how can
one develop on a Mac cross-platform projects employing such fonts that were
created specifically for the PC LCD and (2) will it ever be
possible/feasible for us to customize these hand-built screen fonts (as we
customarily customize T1 fonts with FOG, to create, for instance, the score
of macron-accented characters required for transliterating Japanese and
such glyphs as the Philippine peso symbol). The question of
latest-technology accented characters for scholarly transliterations of
Sanskrit gives me nightmares.
Peter Stanbridge's observation sums up many of my reservations about this
> How does anyone know whether people actually read 'a lot of text' on
> screen. My feeling is that (apart from a news item) if the text takes
> more than one screenful, the reader is either going to scan read or
> else print out the document.
So, is there a realistic solution to satisfying our clients' cross-platform
needs while staying current with developing technologies?
Writing from the heart of Tokyo,
Becky Davis <[log in to unmask]>
International Paper Sizes:
Exploring Old Tokyo: