Fonts, highlighting etc in user guides

I haven't been closely following the details of the discussion on fonts,
arrows vs >, highlighting (italics, bold, etc), but I have some concerns to
note.

IMO the criterion should be: do the differences add GENUINE VALUE for the
user, so the changes are genuinely worth the time it takes for
writers/editors/reviewers to apply, check that they are applied correctly,
etc. "It looks good in PDF/print" is not, IMO, sufficient reason for doing
things, though it should be a positive side-effect.

"Keep it simple" has a lot to recommend it.

1) Time is saved in production, consistency of presentation is improved, and
writers can concentrate on content instead of appearance (applying character
styles).

2) Clean files can be output to a variety of media, including (but not
limited to) PDF, print, ePub, HTML, DAISY (Digital Accessible Information
System) talking books, braille. WE may not provide all those outputs, but
others may wish to use our files as source documents for them.

Hal

Hi, :slight_smile:

Well, my 2 cents would be that it's advantageous to have a
comprehensive set of styles and conventions in the template, for
consistency and precisely to allow content to be adapted easily to
different media. Plus there have to be clear and simple explanations
about where and how to apply those styles and conventions.

But, for sure, it's better not to let things get to an overly-complex
situation that makes it difficult for newcomers to get into the
workflow, and slow for team members to work on content.

"Keep it simple" has a lot to recommend it.

+1.

David Nelson

Be advised that there are both screen (displayed on a monitor) and printer fonts (for actual printed docs). Their characters do not always have the same dimensions or appearances for each type.

Thus, a PDF viewed on a monitor may appear different from its actual printed copy. And if the viewer's computer system does not have the actual typefaces employed in the PDF, the viewed PDF will have other typefaces substituted for the absent typefaces.

Gary

Not true. PDFs include embedded fonts and will appear identical on all systems regardless of the fonts installed on a particular computer.

Larry

Not always... For example, the Adobe PDF printer file has a number of options for embedding or not embedding fonts. According to one option, there is a check box in the Adobe PDF Settings tabbed page (under the Adobe PDF Conversion Settings fields) for using system fonts. The precise wording for that check box's text is: "Rely on system fonts only; do not use document fonts".

The Fonts tabbed page in that printer file also contains other options for embedding fonts.

Gary

Thus, a PDF viewed on a monitor may appear different from its actual printed copy. And if the viewer's computer system does not have the actual typefaces employed in the PDF, the viewed PDF will have other typefaces substituted for the absent typefaces.

Not true. PDFs include embedded fonts and will appear identical on all systems regardless of the fonts installed on a particular computer.

Larry

Not always...

Your previous statement "if the viewer's computer system does not have the actual typefaces employed in the PDF, the viewed PDF will have other typefaces substituted for the absent typefaces" implies that fonts are not embedded.

For example, the Adobe PDF printer file has a number of options for embedding or not embedding fonts. According to one option, there is a check box in the Adobe PDF Settings tabbed page (under the Adobe PDF Conversion Settings fields) for using system fonts. The precise wording for that check box's text is: "Rely on system fonts only; do not use document fonts".

We are referring to LibreOffice, not Adobe. I do not see any options to not embed fonts when exporting a document to PDF. The usual advice for OOo, and I expect this applies to LibreOffice as well is to send PDFs to people so they can read them as you formatted them regardless even if they can not read the original file type you created them in.

The Fonts tabbed page in that printer file also contains other options for embedding fonts.

Again, we are talking about LibreOffice, not Adobe.

Larry

Larry Gusaas wrote:

We are referring to LibreOffice, not Adobe. I do not see any options to
not embed fonts when
exporting a document to PDF. The usual advice for OOo, and I expect this
applies to LibreOffice
as well is to send PDFs to people so they can read them as you formatted
them regardless even
if they can not read the original file type you created them in.

That is an advertised feature for OOo 3.3, and I presume LibO has the same
feature. I don't see a checkbox for it, though, so I don't know what the
deal is. Previously, I used export to PDF/A-1a to make sure the fonts were
embedded.