Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site harvard.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!tomczak
From: tomczak@harvard.ARPA (Bill Tomczak)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Boston font
Message-ID: <480@harvard.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 13:26:36 EST
Article-I.D.: harvard.480
Posted: Wed Nov  6 13:26:36 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 07:35:22 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard
Lines: 83
summary:  maybe more readable; but probably not letter quality

Awhile back I asked "what's so hot about the Boston font?"  I got a
few responses and thought some of you might be interested in seeing
them.  In summary: It seems I'm making a distinction now between
'letter quality' and 'readability'.  I wouldn't know how to go about
testing the readability, and frankly don't know what consitutes letter
quality other than my own biases and (mis)information.  In general, I
felt like most people agreed, more or less, with my assesment.  So if
anyone out there is expecting letter quality output from their image
writer, be warned that the Boston font may not really satisfy you.  However,
it IS a nice font and it is generally agreed to be better than what comes
with your Mac.  It's worth a try.

So, herewith, the responses and my comments....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>[The New York] font is really
>nice, I think, but it just doesn't come out very well on the ImageWriter.
>ON the LaserWriter it's just awesome, but if you print stuff in New York-12
>and Boston-10, both in high quality mode, you can see a pretty big difference
>(at least I thought so enough to switch completely to Boston).  Boston-9
>is also very nice.  Boston-12 is just too big.

Well, I tried Boston-10 and still wasn't all that impressed.  I'll grant that
it's a bit cleaner than New York, but not enough for me to start raving about
letter quality on the imagewriter.  It has quite a ways to go before calling
it letter quality.  I would still assert that to get letter quality you'll have
to go to a laserwriter.  I agree, ALL the laser fonts look great! (on the
laserwriter).  But we're talking about letter quality on an imagewriter.  I
remain unconvinced.


>[Boston is] especially [good] at 12 pt. and 9pt. (if you have 18 & 24 
>installed too, of course).
>It is not letter quality but very readable.  Serif typefaces tend to provide 
>more visual cues and therefore seem to be easier/faster to recognize.  That
>gives Boston a slight edge over Geneva.  It looks a little clearer than NY
>on my Imagewriter.  Perhaps you were hyped about this font and got your hopes
>raised too high.

Which just about sums up my own thoughts.  Letter quality has some very
exacting standards to live up to.  The readability issue is being addressed
by someone designing digital fonts.  I forget his name but there is an
article in one of the recent MacWorlds.  He developed Lucida and Pellucida
for DEC VAXstation screens.  If anyone wants the specific article reference,
send me e-mail.

>Actually, I was quite impressed with Boston font.  I have told many of
>my friends here about it, and am going to provide a few of them with
>a copy.  As far as I can tell, the printing is superior to many of the
>diablo printers I've seen.
>
>It is sometimes even nicer than Laserwriter output, since the 
>Imagewriter copy looks less xeroxy ("impact" printing).
>
>But then again, maybe I'm not a good judge of print quality after all.

Well, I can see the point.  Who knows, I may find an appropriate use for
this font yet.

>I agree with your assessment of the Boston font.  I used it for some writing
>assignments but soon decided that there are better fonts available at no
>cost (e.g. Geneva).


>  This may be a stupid question, but I hope you did install
>the large sizes (18,20,24) as well.  I find Boston in high
>quality much more readable than Geneva and nicer than New York.
>The added advantage is that in 9 and 10 point the results
>correspond to elite and pica typewriter type.  Of course,
>this is just a personal opinion.

I'm one of those who doesn't believe in stupid questions.  However, I
did install the larger sizes.  If the previous didn't make it clear,
I will state it explicitly here.  I see readability as a different
issue than letter quality.  Are there any official definitions out
there?  And I *don't* mean personal opinions.  I would be interested
to hear what a professional typographer has to say on the subject or
quotes from typography manuals/resources.

Sorry for the length.  It didn't seem to fit well into a yes or no
kind of summary.

bill tomczak@harvard.{HARVARD.EDU, UUCP}