4 ms·
The slight unbalance and the not-totally-uniform looks make cmr much more readable. The breaking with the typesetting tradition makes it better, because it is u
by corty 5y ago
The slight unbalance and the not-totally-uniform looks make cmr much more readable. The breaking with the typesetting tradition makes it better, because it is unhindered by such useless flourishes as "must taper" or "must look like any other letter fitting into a uniform box of equal greying when smudged". cmr does this while still looking good and pleasing when viewed in whole paragraphs as opposed to single letters.
And where cmr absolutely excels is the accompanying greek, math symbols and typesetting. Nothing else comes even close in getting it readable, pleasing and uniform.
- crazygringo 5y ago> The slight unbalance and the not-totally-uniform looks make cmr much more readable. That's frankly a very idiosyncratic take, and not one many professionals would agree with. By that logic, toolbars with icons would become easier to use if their icons were all slightly off-center from each other -- which is very much not the case. Part of reading legibility comes from the shapes of words, not letters by themselves. Generally speaking, we read words -- not letters. When individual letters are off balance or especially non-uniform, they draw attention to themselves rather than making the word coherent as a whole. This, of course, is one of the reasons why kerning pairs are so important. Also, tapering isn't a "flourish" it's just how roman serifs work. And "uniform box of equal greying when smudged" is neither a flourish nor a rule at all, it appears to be something you've invented.