Comments on: AMS Euler compared with Computer Modern http://existentialtype.net/2006/12/04/ams-euler-compared-with-computer-modern/ For People Who Like Type and Types Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:20:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Joshua Dunfield http://existentialtype.net/2006/12/04/ams-euler-compared-with-computer-modern/comment-page-1/#comment-1161 Joshua Dunfield Wed, 06 Dec 2006 10:20:20 +0000 http://existentialtype.net/?p=81#comment-1161 I'd definitely like to see this fixed. The anorexic turnstile, \oplus, etc. have bothered me enough that I've used "splat bold", which just "splats" a second copy of the symbol shifted slightly from the first one: \newlength{\zzsplatboldwidth} \newcommand{\xsplatbold}[2]{\settowidth{\zzsplatboldwidth}{{#2}}{#2}\addtolength{\zzsplatboldwidth}{-#1}\hspace{-\zzsplatboldwidth}\raisebox{#1}{{#2}}} e.g.: \newcommand{\splatbold}[1]{\xsplatbold{-0.04mm}{#1}} \newcommand{\splatoplus}{\splatbold{\oplus}} This is pretty hideous, but hideous beats unreadable-from-the-back-of-the-room. Obviously I'd prefer to have properly designed symbols. I’d definitely like to see this fixed. The anorexic turnstile, \oplus, etc. have bothered me enough that I’ve used “splat bold”, which just “splats” a second copy of the symbol shifted slightly from the first one:

\newlength{\zzsplatboldwidth}
\newcommand{\xsplatbold}[2]{\settowidth{\zzsplatboldwidth}{{#2}}{#2}\addtolength{\zzsplatboldwidth}{-#1}\hspace{-\zzsplatboldwidth}\raisebox{#1}{{#2}}}

e.g.:
\newcommand{\splatbold}[1]{\xsplatbold{-0.04mm}{#1}}
\newcommand{\splatoplus}{\splatbold{\oplus}}

This is pretty hideous, but hideous beats unreadable-from-the-back-of-the-room. Obviously I’d prefer to have properly designed symbols.

]]> By: oxlahun http://existentialtype.net/2006/12/04/ams-euler-compared-with-computer-modern/comment-page-1/#comment-1156 oxlahun Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:43:34 +0000 http://existentialtype.net/?p=81#comment-1156 I had a pretty good idea what you were talking about, but the example definitely strengthens it. Turnstile and equivalence bother me the least of the five imported symbols, possibly because it's easiest for me to think of those as purely geometric. Yeah, they could use a little more weight, but it's not as jarring as up-arrow and forall. The star, curiously, is the one that looks completely out of place to me. So what's the plan? Your post the other day expressed, if I may generalize, some uncertainty about the simple geometric forms. What are you doing about the complex geometrics (forall and up-arrow) and the nongeometrics like the star? I had a pretty good idea what you were talking about, but the example definitely strengthens it.

Turnstile and equivalence bother me the least of the five imported symbols, possibly because it’s easiest for me to think of those as purely geometric. Yeah, they could use a little more weight, but it’s not as jarring as up-arrow and forall. The star, curiously, is the one that looks completely out of place to me.

So what’s the plan? Your post the other day expressed, if I may generalize, some uncertainty about the simple geometric forms. What are you doing about the complex geometrics (forall and up-arrow) and the nongeometrics like the star?

]]> By: kitby http://existentialtype.net/2006/12/04/ams-euler-compared-with-computer-modern/comment-page-1/#comment-1154 kitby Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:50:15 +0000 http://existentialtype.net/?p=81#comment-1154 Having seen both Computer Modern and AMS Euler in print and on screen (paper preview size and "presentation" size), I say the differences are noticeable, namely that Euler is easier to read. I more holistic comparison would also be useful, say, a paragraph with both plain text (including a pangram of some sort, even if it's a meaningless phrase), inline math, and "display" math (to use LaTeX terminology). I guess if I were choosing what fonts to use, I'd be making a comparison based on some particular context. (At some point, I used to choose completely different fonts for presentations than I did papers.) Having seen both Computer Modern and AMS Euler in print and on screen (paper preview size and “presentation” size), I say the differences are noticeable, namely that Euler is easier to read. I more holistic comparison would also be useful, say, a paragraph with both plain text (including a pangram of some sort, even if it’s a meaningless phrase), inline math, and “display” math (to use LaTeX terminology). I guess if I were choosing what fonts to use, I’d be making a comparison based on some particular context. (At some point, I used to choose completely different fonts for presentations than I did papers.)

]]>