5 ms·
How could there possibly be "no" to this from the Fed. Govt? If you don't need to print, then don't print. If you print, then print in a way that saves ink / to
by rexreed 13y ago
How could there possibly be "no" to this from the Fed. Govt? If you don't need to print, then don't print. If you print, then print in a way that saves ink / toner. Why not? How could the Federal Government possibly object? It's a "Yes And" solution (to use Improv Comedy lingo). If you need to print, do it in a way that saves money. There's no reason not to.
- Fomite 13y agoSince many documents are not just "text on a page", one might wonder how much it will cost to lay things out using a more efficient font.
- gagaga 13y agoChange the typeface may result in layout issues. That could be a reason not to.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> If you print, then print in a way that saves ink / toner. Why not? How could the Federal Government possibly object? Because there are other considerations with print besides ink/toner costs of printing. Like readability (including readability in the presence of real-world printing errors, since that means less chance of extra prints being made at additional cost.)
- anigbrowl 13y agoThe most obvious objection would be that Federal Government does not, in fact, print everything in Times New Roman to begin with. I just reached into my filing cabinet and grabbed some random documents from my 'Taxes' folder; turns out the IRS communicates mostly in Helvetica or some similar Sans Serif font. this whole story is based on the implicit assumption that nobody in the government has ever thought about this issue before. As so often, that assumption seems quite inaccurate.
- illuminate 13y ago"How could there possibly be "no" to this from the Fed. Govt?" Because legibility is more important than laser toner.