Re: Times Roman 'N' Helvetica (formerly SGML, etc.)

[CARTER HANSEN <chansen -at- CWIS -dot- UNOMAHA -dot- EDU>]

Bonni_Graham_at_Enfin-SD -at- relay -dot- proteon -dot- com writes:
>      They (TR 'N' H, the Terrible Twins) _are_ clear faces (see below), but
>      they are also used by everybody and her dog.  We ended up using
>      Palatino (primarily for its lovely italic and lettershapes) and Avant
>      Gard.  I'd rather have used Optima, but I lost on that one.  Ah,
>      well...

>      Seriously, though, font choice is something to think about carefully.
>      TR & H give a very solid traditional look -- not something that's very
>      appropriate for a cutting-edge product, even if only thee and me can
>      tell.  There's a je ne sais quoi about using faces -- people get an
>      impression of something without even really knowing WHY.

>      For example, I used Century Schoolbook and Helvetica in a recent
>      project that was aimed at teachers.  What are a lot of text books
>      printed in?  Century Schoolbook.  They immediately felt at home, even
>      if they didn't know why.  I've got the feedback to prove this.

>      For another example, US textbooks are usually printed in a serif face,
>      therefore, serif faces are more "truthful" (as well as more
>      recognizable) to a US audience.  However, European text books are
>      usually printed in san serif, therefore... (I read this somewhere in
>      an article about communicating in international markets, really)

>      This is a long answer to your question, but I really believe that
>      typeface choice is highly underrated as a quality issue.  Anyone else
>      wanna comment?

> Bonni Graham                               |
> Technical Writer                           | em dash, n. A hyphen with
> Easel Corporation, ENFIN Technology Lab    | delusions of grandeur.
> Bonni_Graham_at_Enfin-SD -at- relay -dot- proteon -dot- com | --Ezra Shapiro
> President, San Diego STC                   |

> From:         K Angelucci <tscom001 -at- DUNX1 -dot- OCS -dot- DREXEL -dot- EDU>

>          Just curious, why didn't you use Times Roman or Helvetica in your
> last manual?  I always thaought that they were very clear fonts.  What did
> you use?

On this subject, I wholeheartedly agree with you Bonni!  Few technical
writers these days just write the material for a new manual.  Many must
make some difficult design choices.  I hope that those who make these
decisions do so with some rational foundation.  A manual designer ought
to know a good deal about typography, as well as psychology, graphic design,
illustration, cognition, and perhaps even color/prepress.

BTW, I also think Optima is a lovely typeface, but I use it in newsletters,
not technical manuals.  The manuals I write are also for technologically
advanced software, and Optima seems just a bit frilly for that context.
Personally, I settled on Garamond & Futura for the manuals.  Regardless, I
appreciate your concern for typography.