5 ms·
Not sure you read my reply? (note the italics part below) >> MS-Word as a product is intended for the "write it, and then print it" market (whether the actual
by Surio 14y ago
Not sure you read my reply? (note the italics part below)
>> MS-Word as a product is intended for the "write it, and then print it" market (whether the actual printing happens or not is another thing altogether), and for that demographic, the typographic convention is Serif for body text
Same convention holds true for typesetting packages like Quark/InDesign/LaTeX, etc. The established convention for documents cranked out is what I mentioned earlier... So regardless of parent poster's/your opinions [0] on this topic, the choice is mixed up because body text ought to be Serif (and heading something else if needed).
[0] it's not the design choice that's wrong, but the assumptions about who Word is now intended for
- PeterisP 14y agoI read your reply, but what I mean is exactly contradicting your statements: I'm saying that right now MS-Word is NOT a product intended (by its makers) for that market and the "same established convention" simply does not hold true anymore for MS Office. And the evidence for this position is this design choice made by Microsoft. I'm treating it not as a mistake, but as part of proof that they've consciously chosen screen-viewing instead of printing as their goal, and applied that convention for their apps. What evidence is there that the current MS Word is aimed at printing primarily, and because of that its "body text ought to be Serif" ? It has been aimed at printing a dozen years ago, sure, but why you're reasoning that it still is now?