Not only I'm not convinced about the predictability for a monospace font (one page of a movie script can contain lots of dialogues, which can be read in a matter of seconds another page could contain a long description or a long monologue, meaning much more words per page), but I would like to see some statistical data to compare monospace fonts vs. I'm not sure about the validity of the claim. Source: Why We Use Courier for Traditional Screenwriting Font If we were to use a proportional font, the mixture of spacing would make that rule less accurate. Monospacing makes Courier a consistent representation of the “one page equals one minute” rule. Last but not least, monospace fonts are used in some fields because of the predictability of how much text there is on a page. O: an oval with a dot (or a slanting line) is a digit zero, while a slightly differently looking oval with nothing inside would mean a capital letter “O.” The difference is subtle, but it is slightly easier to see that a dot was replaced by a comma, and a lowercase letter “L” became a capital “I” in “correlation.” For the same reasons, some fonts go further to differentiate characters which look very similar, such as 0 vs. Can you spot two errors in “const log = logger.create(global,appCorreIationId) ”? Now what about monospaced font? const log = logger.create(global,appCorreIationId) This is why monospace fonts are commonly used for development. Monospace fonts compared to non-monospace ones are great when one needs to either work with rectangular selections, or when mistakenly taking one character for another could have serious consequences. With low resolution, small details are easily lost, which means that simpler fonts win. Sans-serif fonts compared to serif ones look better, however, on low-resolution media and before technologies such as ClearType existed. Serif fonts compared to sans-serif are easier to read on high-resolution media (such as printed books or 300 ppi displays), because the visual difference between the letters is higher. The different font families have specific benefits: Both let the users type their thing in monospace, as it offers many advantages at the writing stage, yet the typings are presented to the readers using the type most appropriate for the occastion: proportional type for general text, monospace for preformatted text, or even no text at all at the first glance for spoilers. Look at the original multiline input element of the HTML od the more advanced question/answer editor here at SE. I think the key is the typewriter feeling: I understand many writers prefer the typewriter feeling while actually typing, yet very few had their writing ever published in monospace (I admit I lack the requisite information about how many actually asked their publishers to have their thing set in monospace for general readership because they as authors liked the look and feel of typewritten text). Take look at the opening of "Murder, She Wrote" - it's just a few letters one has to read, the rest being just a block of text, to behold but not to read (and funnily enough, the spacing is huuge, no writer would ever do that). I feel (and have no authoritative data for this) that most well received uses of typewritten text to evoke that writer feeling were one liners. With typewritten text for broader or perhaps even general consumption one had to use huge line spaces to make up for this. The reason for this is that the biggest advantage of proportional fonts is the ease with which eyes follow lines. If I were you, I would go for monospace or monofake for the one liners and maybe headings, and proportional sans-serif for whatever can grow to multiline. Typing and reading are two distinct things
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |