Re: Colourising Dr Who etc




"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4f7cc79d32dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <zImdnTVx461rQUzanZ2dnUVZ8tmhnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx>,
Bill Wright <insertmybusinessname@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes but the general idea is to write things using text to its fullest
capability, not pervert the medium by turning letters into pictures that
only work when the text is monospaced. Monospacing is a prehistoric
remnant of the mechanical typewriter age. Of course it makes reading
more difficult, which is a very good reason to consign it to the
history books.

Makes reading more difficult? I use it here because it's *easier* to
read. On a medium designed for it.

Hang on! All this started because someone said that monospace was harder to
read. And if you look in any typography book it will tell you that the
reason for kerning is to make the text easier to read. You can't argue with
such a huge body of knowledge and experience. Why else is all typographical
output proportionately spaced and kerned except for primitive stuff like old
typewriters and early computers?


If technology had moved straight from handwriting to
Microsoft Word no-one would even have conceived of monospaced text.

What a thought. If Word were the only alternative to writing most of the
20th century books would never have got written.
If Austen and Dickens had had the use of a laptop with Vista loaded they
would have turned out more stuff and it would have been better. Saying
otherwise is like saying that you can do more deliveries if you use a slower
van.


What a bizarre concept it is, allowing a stop the same space as an 'm'.

It's far more bizarre not using anti-aliasing on a display based medium.
What's that got to do with it?

Bill

PS: I'm just off to write The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire on me
laptop.


.