3 ms·

I'm intrigued. Typically ugly things are jarring and slow down interaction. Can you elaborate on what makes it easy to read?

by taeric 5y ago

nextos 5y ago
If you go through old Springer Undergraduate or Graduate Texts in Mathematics (typeset in TeX and Computer Modern) you'll notice they are really pleasant on the eyes. The amount of information density is just right. There's no noise and it's very easy to distinguish where sections start and end. If you look into any great pre-TeX book like Rudin [1], it looks much uglier and more difficult to read. I'd actually pay a significant amount of money for new editions of Rudin or Halmos typeset in TeX and Computer Modern. They'd be much easier to go through. I must also add Latin Modern is a slight update to Computer Modern that is slightly thicker and looks much better on screens. [1] https://web.math.ucsb.edu/~agboola/teaching/2021/winter/122A/rudin.pdf https://web.math.ucsb.edu/~agboola/teaching/2021/winter/122A...
- taeric 5y ago
  Right. My question was more surprise that easy to read does not translate to beautiful in this case. Seems an odd juxtaposition. Caveat, I like computer modern.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
I really don't know. I just find that the cognitive experience of reading papers or even books set in CM is always very easy for me, certainly compared to some other common fonts. However, my first glance at the page(s) always leads to "Oh, ugh, not CM again" and my eye notices the serifs, the rather blocky aspect ratio, the weirdly varying line weights ... and then I read it and my eyes/brain love it.
- taeric 5y ago
  Fair. I suspect there may be some reminder of over zealous advocates when you first see it? Such that knowing the font is enough to remember a lot of the nonsense around it. Even if it is somewhat objectively good? That is, is this a blending of bad subjective experience with otherwise good objective experiences?
- bombcar 5y ago
  I wonder if this is something like the Ratatouille effect - you know enough to “know” what shouldn’t work, but Knuth knows enough to know what does work - and your eyes agree.

I'm intrigued. Typically ugly things are jarring and slow down interaction. Can you elaborate on what makes it easy to read?

by taeric 5y ago

I'm intrigued. Typically ugly things are jarring and slow down interaction. Can you elaborate on what makes it easy to read?

nextos 5y ago

If you go through old Springer Undergraduate or Graduate Texts in Mathematics (typeset in TeX and Computer Modern) you'll notice they are really pleasant on the eyes. The amount of information density is just right. There's no noise and it's very easy to distinguish where sections start and end. If you look into any great pre-TeX book like Rudin [1], it looks much uglier and more difficult to read. I'd actually pay a significant amount of money for new editions of Rudin or Halmos typeset in TeX and Computer Modern. They'd be much easier to go through. I must also add Latin Modern is a slight update to Computer Modern that is slightly thicker and looks much better on screens. [1] https://web.math.ucsb.edu/~agboola/teaching/2021/winter/122A/rudin.pdf https://web.math.ucsb.edu/~agboola/teaching/2021/winter/122A...

taeric 5y ago
Right. My question was more surprise that easy to read does not translate to beautiful in this case. Seems an odd juxtaposition. Caveat, I like computer modern.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

I really don't know. I just find that the cognitive experience of reading papers or even books set in CM is always very easy for me, certainly compared to some other common fonts. However, my first glance at the page(s) always leads to "Oh, ugh, not CM again" and my eye notices the serifs, the rather blocky aspect ratio, the weirdly varying line weights ... and then I read it and my eyes/brain love it.

taeric 5y ago
Fair. I suspect there may be some reminder of over zealous advocates when you first see it? Such that knowing the font is enough to remember a lot of the nonsense around it. Even if it is somewhat objectively good? That is, is this a blending of bad subjective experience with otherwise good objective experiences?
bombcar 5y ago
I wonder if this is something like the Ratatouille effect - you know enough to “know” what shouldn’t work, but Knuth knows enough to know what does work - and your eyes agree.