Sonny Software

This is in response to a question from Jon in another thread:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2414

The way I have my preferences set:

Bibliographies: Didot
References: Gill Sans
List: Skia
Notecards: Didot

here is my list:

Bibliographies: Warnock Pro 12
References: Lucida Grande 11
List: Lucida Grande 11
Notecards: Helvetica Neue 11

I find the standard settings kind of strange – seeing the default serif font (Times? or was it even Times New Roman?) for lists was quite a surprise for me when I reset the preferences.

I find the use of OS X standard fonts for interfaces (i.e. Lucida Grande) more pleasing and more expected.

However, I use the non-standard Warnock Pro 12 for bibliographies because that way I can just copy and paste it into my word processor, where I always use Warnock Pro. And for Notecards, I chose Helvetica Neue (instead of just Helvetica) because it offers an italic face.

Hi,

I have chosen Arial in all four categories, as this is easy readable and also is the one that I typically use in my documents when writing.

Indeed, Times New Roman seems like a strange choice as default font, especially as it isn't very "screen friendly".

Thanks to all for the feedback. I have provisionally changed the defaults (which you don't get if you already have run Bookends) is

Bibliographies: Times New Roman 12
References: Arial 12
Lists: Arial 13
Notecards: Didot 12

Subject to change, of course.

Jon
Sonny Software

One thing that you might want to take into consideration is how fit the different fonts are for different characters/glyphs (especially non-european ones). Although I would think that both Arial/Times New Roman (or Helvetica/Times, the standard Mac equivalents to these) have by now (in their Snow Leopard incarnations) been extended far enough to include many unusual characters & diacritics – like the ū (small letter u with macron), which I sometimes have to use.

Maybe others can chime in on this subject, since I don’t have much experience with unusual characters in my bibliographies…

So to conclude: from my perspective, the fonts you have chosen now seem to be rich enough for most purposes.
(Didot was a bit of a surprise though, hehe).

ozean wrote:O
(Didot was a bit of a surprise though, hehe).

It was mentioned above, and I thought it looked nice (and differentiated notecards from other text on the screen). As I said, these are provisional changes, so I'm open to more feedback.

Jon
Sonny Software

Yes, after my initial surprise I also thought it might actually be a neat choice because of the long distance between the single glyphs – makes it look more spacious or something like that. (Of course, that means that less text fits into the available space, but that might not be the most important aspect.)

I think it is a good idea to use big font sizes as defaults like you do. There is a correlation between age and quality of eyesight and there might be a correlation between age and average computer savvyness (or at least the willingness to play around with application preferences) so the bigger size should give some comfort to those poor souls who had to stare at their screens and write about clever things for more than a decade or so… (ahh, a bright & bleary eyed future awaits us!)

Those who like it tiny and compressed should at least not be put off by preference windows full of options as easily.

Related to the choice of fonts: How about free selection of the fontsize? A combo box in place of the static popup menu would allow to enter a user preferred fontsize (in Preferences/General, Preferences/Concise View). As for Menu/Font, I have never used it and Menu/Style only to designate italics/bold/underline in reference styles.

Rudi

Rudi_Grams wrote:Related to the choice of fonts: How about free selection of the fontsize? A combo box in place of the static popup menu would allow to enter a user preferred fontsize (in Preferences/General, Preferences/Concise View).

OK.

Jon
Sonny Software