[PD] Cross-platform uniform GUI rendering of patches.

[Roman Haefeli]

On Don, 2017-02-23 at 15:41 -0300, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
>
> It's just really hard on the eyes and makes it really hard to read
> any text because bold was never intended to be the "regular" default
> font... no font in the world was designed to be used as bold by
> default... or italic... or bold/italic... that's why they are "bold"
> or "italic" and not regular...
> 
> It makes sense to have those options just to highlight and outline
> some parts of the text, but pd's comment do not allow that... so I
> wonder why the possibility of hardcoding it to bold exists at all...
> let alone be the default, and if linux people really thought that was
> nice, I really wonder why and would like to hear about it - I just
> can't see why so far...

What you are saying is totally plausible, I think, in that it would be
strange to use bold as the "normal" weight. However, I do not consider
a patch running text. Rather it's diagram of keywords. I do believe
it's easier for me to read a patch with bold words in boxes, but maybe
this is only esoteric. Maybe it's also that I think bold text is easier
on the eyes, because it somewhat sticks out bit from the boxes. With
normal weight, both boxes and fonts use 1px wide lines and it's
visually messier. Pd-extended solved that by using gray outlines which
makes them appear still a bit lighter. Personally, I don't like that
Pd-extended's boxes are opaque. 

I don't really have a strong point, at the same time I also do not
think that one is much worse than the other.

Roman
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20170223/4511a353/attachment.sig>