Hi, I'm interested to know which font people generally prefer to use in
text on displayed forms. In the past I have tended to use Arial bold /
size 8 with smaller CRT monitors. However, now I have 17" LCD monitor
and the the font looks a little harsh when the form is maximized to the
full screen. I can make the application smaller and this approximates
the old screen but my aging vision likes having a large font to
read.... So, apart from experimenting with the many options, I would
appreciate any opinions you would like to offer. Thanks Paul.

On 24 Jan 2006 18:46:11 -0800, pfweston (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote:

Arial is easy to read, but fat and ugly.

I like Baker Signet, available on your WP Suite disks. Very clear and
elegant. I use Amerigo for smaller sizes, and when I really need to cram a
lot of letters into a tiny little field I use Lapidary.

I tend to print with Goudy Old Style, also on the WP disks. It's very easy
on the old eyes, even with hundreds of pages of ms. However, it doesn't
seem to kern very well on screen, and this is mildly irritating. So I use
Baker Signet on the forms, and Goudy Old Style on the output.

I've experimented with lots of fonts, but always seem to return to these. I
use a 17" CRT.


Jim Hargan

If you're going to distribute your application to other users, I'd stick
with fonts that are universally found on all MS systems. Jim's experience
with Baker Signet and Goudy Old Style fonts may prove problematic on PC's
that don't have those fonts installed (example: I don't have them).
Paradox will substitute them and the output becomes unpredictable from PC to
PC.

I stick with "Microsoft Sans Serif" fonts. Note, there is "MS Sans Serif"
and "Microsoft Sans Serif".... they are "not the same".

"Microsoft Sans Serif" is more likely to be installed on more PC's and your
output will be more predictable.


--
....
`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> rodney

Agree!

I design my forms for 1024 x 768 resolution (with default 96 DPI setting for
the screen). I then use Verdana 10 for all my forms. For some info on the
form that is not so important I use MS Sans Serif 8.

I have a library that handles the design of my form, so if I wish I can
change the look an all my forms with just one line of code (as long as the
font size is roughly the same).

In my reports I use Arial 10 (8 when needed), boring but it works!

Anders

Thanks for the suggestions. On my home machine, which has a 15" CRT
monitor, Microsoft Sans Serif wins out for being more stable than the
others, and more readable as the application size is varied. I will be
interested to see how it looks on the 17" LCD at work. One of my other
concerns with the display at work is that when the font shows as white
on black ie when it is in focus, there is "bleeding" which makes the
lettering harder to read. Not sure what causes this. Thanks, Paul.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:09:05 -0500, Rodney Wise wrote:

Good point. Paul's question sounded like a personal preference thing.
Inside a SOHO networked environment, font distribution is easy -- you just
install from each other's font folder. But when you distribute, having to
install fonts on every workstation would add an unnecessary layer of
complexity. And the Corel font licenses probably wouldn't extend to
distribution with Runtime -- only with a full install. They're good fonts,
though.

I'd use Verdana -- it's designed by one of the world's leading font makers
specifically for screen display. For a serifed font, Book Antiqua beats
Times New Roman all hollow. It's more elegant and thinner, easier on the
eyes, and IMHO TNR does't lead correctly. Saw a web site that used TNR
effectively just by increasing the leading by 30%. I've never used
Microsoft Sans Serif.

Jh

When I'm working with Fonts in a critical fashion... I prefer Postscript
fonts and Aldus PageMaker. I started working with PageMaker when it was
first released back in the mid 80's (on a Mac) and it was absolutely
revolutionary. I was working in an Ad Department and we always had to use
an outside service for "Type".... The "Type" we received back wasn't always
exactly what we wanted so we usually always had to cut it up with razors and
paste it onto the boards using a fine wax and a hot-wax machine (I still
have one). The Postscript language along with the new Apple 300 DPI Laser
printers allowed us to create almost perfect renditions (dummy's) of "copy".
We had complete control over inserting edits and fixing typos well before
the final "Type" was produced. To top it off, the final "Type" could be
produced by using a higher resolution (1200 or 2400 DPI) "Lino-Tronic"
machine which could read our original Mac/PageMaker produced Postscript file
used for our dummy. No more mistakes caused by someone else having to
re-typing the text into a "Type Setter" and trying to set the kerning and
leading along with all the other nuances we injected.

While "True-Type" fonts have been an improvement for Windows machines.... I
believe that Postscript Fonts are still the way to go when Font control is
critical. Actually, Postscript in general is the superior method for
producing quality pages of Type, Colors and Graphics. So... PS Screen
Fonts and PDF output might be the way to go if font control is critical.

However.... if we're talking about day-to-day Paradox applications using
"Screen Forms" and "Printed Reports"... I wouldn't be trying to control
Kerning or Leading to any degree. While you might end up with something
looking OK on your PC... the results will be unpredictable on others...
There are just too many factors to consider that are out of your control
once the Form or Report lands on another PC.
..... and this includes major differences in the way different "Hardware"
using the same configurations (ie; Screen DPI, etc.) will still manage to
produce diverse results on Windows PC's. Another reason why Apple PC's
have stayed out front in the "Graphics" industry.... the Video Cards and
Monitors will produce predictable results when using different PC's.

So.... for Paradox Forms and Reports, I'd stick with universally available
"True-Type" fonts and live with the overall look of the results. Another
thing to remember is that not all Printers can download Fonts and will
simply substitute your fancy font for another instead.

I just try to keep it simple in that regard. The "Microsoft Sans Serif"
font offers more "defined sizes" then the "MS Sans Serif" font... If I
choose an 8 pnt size for instance, "Microsoft Sans Serif" has that font size
pre-coded.... where as "MS Sans Serif" doesn't and would have to "Create" it
on the fly. The 8 pnt Screen font for "MS Sans Serif" is also "Created" on
the fly and not a very reliable rendition or very attractive (IMHO).


--
....
`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> rodney

<pfweston (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote


Verdana or Tahoma 10pt.

Rick Kelly

Thanks once again for the suggestions. I have tried the various fonts
on my 17" LCD screen at work and Microsoft Sans Serif clealy wins out
for me. It's main adavantages include its stability and clarity at
different different application widow sizes. Its clarity when the field
is in focus, in this case white on black.I'm hoping this will give me a
better result when the application is updated on the other computers
in our department.... Regards Paul.

Thanks once again for the suggestions. I have tried the various fonts
on my 17" LCD screen at work and Microsoft Sans Serif clealy wins out
for me. It's main adavantages include its stability and clarity at
different different application widow sizes. Its clarity when the field
is in focus, in this case white on black.I'm hoping this will give me a
better result when the application is updated on the other computers
in our department.... Regards Paul.