From: leichter@zodiac.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: comp.text.tex
Subject: Re: computer-modern: spam of typefaces?
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:22:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers University Department of Computer Science

Actually, I don't think it's the CM fonts as such that are "tired" - as some-
one has already pointed out, Times Roman is much more widely used, but many
fewer people would consider it "tired"!

I think the source of the problem is different:

	a)  The LaTeX styles are VERY "tired".  Whatever one thinks of
		their inherent qualities (personally, I think they're
		pretty good, though there are certain aspects I find
		poor), they have been used in so many places for so
		many different things that they are long worn out.

		This repeated use of a single design in many different
		contexts is new:  Sure, the New York Times reuses the same
		style every day, year in and year out - but for the Times,
		an entity you EXPECT to look the same every time you see it.
		If every newspaper in the world used the Times's style, the
		story would be rather different.

		Similarly, you expect to see the same style used consistently
		in a series of tech reports or books, but you see it inter-
		mixed with a variety of other styles.  That helps keep things
		fresh.

		Now, however, you can expect to see LaTeX's article (or
		report or book - they really all look the same) in half the
		tech reports you read, in many of the articles appearing in
		conference proceedings - even in books.  Sure, there are minor
		variations:  Every institution with a decent TeX hacker has
		its own cover page.  But get beyond that, and you have
		"article".

		I did a variation of the LaTeX styles (mainly, I used the
		sans fonts for headings, but there are other little changes
		in there) for my own writing.  It's amazing how much fairly
		minor changes can liven up the result.  I use these styles
		whenever I don't have to conform with some pre-existing style.
		I've refused to let other people have them:  If they are poor
		(certainly a possibility, I'm not an expert!) I don't want to
		propagate my mistakes.  If they are decent - I don't want them
		widely used, as then they'll become boring again!

		Variety is the spice of life, and there are many possible
		good designs.  Computers offer the potential for variety -
		along with the potential for infinite, deadening repetition.
		The choice is ours.

	b)  All too often, the use of LaTeX styles, or even of TeX CM fonts,
		leads to "camera-ready" output, 300dpi printing that is then
		reproduced photographically and published in places that have
		traditionally used much higher quality mechanisms.  A book
		produced this way has a certain deadness to it that's hard to
		pin down exactly.  It looks darker and flatter than it should.
		The contrasts of the sharp edges on characters are lost.  No
		matter what the style chosen, it looks boring and dead.
		Decently produced books in CM - like Knuth's series, for
		example - look entirely different.

							-- Jerry

PS:  I have no strong opinions on the CM Roman fonts - but I confess to a
liking for the CM sans fonts.  Take a look at the arcs on m and n at larger
sizes - the thickness variation is very appealing.  Helvetica is really
quite boring in comparison.	-- J
Newsgroups: comp.text.tex