--- Paul Rohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 08:41 AM 4/24/02 +0100, Andrew Dunbar wrote: > > --- Paul Rohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At > 03:54 > >> To be clear, even divisions won't *ever* look > pretty > >> enough to reproduce in > >> a Unicode manual (except by accident). This > >> approach just gives clear > >> visual feedback that you only selected "a third" > of > >> the glyph. No more, no > >> less. > > > >I don't think the feedback will be as clear as you > >suggest in many cases. Arabic fonts tend to be > small > >and have skinny letters. It's hard to tell just > what > >is and what isn't selected. > > Point taken. Three responses. > > 1. Even a few pixels should be distinguishable. > For example, the mailer > I'm using has a single-pixel-width cursor. By > comparison, the cursor we use > in AbiWord looks beefy to me. > > 2. People use zoom. Especially when the @#$^% > fonts are too small. (Yes, > this assumes the availability of decent scalable > fonts for Arabic.) > > 3. Do such fonts actually exist? If not, recruit > someone to make some. > Please. We write software here. There's only so > much we can do. :-)
The fonts that come with later versions of Windows have beautiful Arabic fonts, some of which are very readable even at small sizes. At least by me, an English speaker - they may all be readable at small sizes by native speakers. I don't know about the quality of existing free fonts. Andrew Dunbar. > Paul ===== http://linguaphile.sourceforge.net http://www.abisource.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com
