[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference vaxuum::document_ft

Title:	DOCUMENT T1.0
Notice:	New notesfile (DOCUMENT.NOTE) now available (see note 897)
Moderator:	CLOSET::ADLER

Created:	Mon Feb 09 1987
Last Modified:	Thu Oct 31 1991
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	897
Total number of notes:	4397

195.0. "Un_der_Score Prob_lems !_!_!" by 37947::HOROWITZ () Fri Apr 03 1987 11:21

         We are using DOCUMENT to produce our documentation set.
         Some documentation is out for review and receiving a
         consistent complaint. The Underscores look awful. They
         are TOO LOW and TOO THIN. One of our writers has
         customized a doctype for us to use. He has tried
         everything possible to change the underscore with
         no success. 
         
         The only underscores we have seen that are reasonable,
         appear in the DOCUMENT manuals. What did you use
         Particularly in your KEY names? Can you give us a
         hint.
         
         Noah Horowitz 
             -

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
195.1	Er, ah, umm...too short, too	COOKIE::JOHNSTON		`Fri Apr 03 1987 14:35`	12
	Well, since someone else already brought it up... Too low and too thin and too short; expecially too short in the soft.spec docytpe. Low and thin might not be so bad if the width could be increased. But in the big picture, this is a nit (my viewpoint only); I'd be happy to add it to a wishlist. Rose
195.2	Check it out in OVERHEADS	COOKIE::JOHNSTON		`Fri Apr 03 1987 14:37`	9
	Check this out in OVERHEADS, as well. It's REALLY blatant there. I tried using "__" to lengthen them, but of course got two underscores in final output instead of one long underscore as I'd not so secretly hoped for. Rose
195.3	ROUTINE_NAME$TO_DO_SOMETHING_FANTASTIC_BUT_UGLY!	37947::HOROWITZ		`Fri Apr 03 1987 15:28`	9
	>But in the big picture, this is a nit We have several ROUTINE name reference documents. Some of the routines have (can you believe it) 6 underscores. It looks TERRIBLE. We could really use a solution, to be fair to our readers. noah
195.4	I'll jump on this bandwagon, too!	37947::BOYACK	pithy...pithy...pithy	`Mon Apr 06 1987 12:33`	8
	Not to overlook the other part of this problem/solution-- how did the DOCUMENT documentation get decent looking underscores for the tags? Emphasis (smallcaps and small_boldcaps) doesn't do it and tenpointss doesn't either. This is more than a nit-- the standard underscores really look awful. I suppose if we used them to underline words instead of to connect multiword command/tag/routine names, they would appear to be normal. Might it be possible to define a special character?
195.5	Fixed in first release	VAXUUM::UTT		`Mon Apr 13 1987 17:12`	7
	I ran some tests and the underscore is indeed unacceptable for the way in which we use it. We talked to Compugraphics, who supplies the LN03 fonts, and they agreed to let us change the underscore character, so this problem will be fixed for V1.0. If you have a Postscript printer available, the underscores output on that are much better.
195.6	...and another thing!	3D::BOYACK	anchorclanker hoseprose incorporeal	`Thu Aug 27 1987 14:31`	7
	V1.0 LYNX doctypes POSTSCRIPT output. With the exception of <CODE_EXAMPLE> output, the POSTSCRIPT underscores look acceptable (maybe they're perfect, but I'm no font expert). The underscores produced within <CODE_EXAMPLE> are too low. (BTW, note 650 has more on underscores/lines) Joe