From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: ASCII-only startup message? Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 09:46:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <<567ECD8C.1070408@cs.ucla.edu>> <<8360zlhy7x.fsf@gnu.org> <567EE043.9020109@cs.ucla.edu>> <<83y4chgh5q.fsf@gnu.org> <567EED47.1090700@cs.ucla.edu>> <<83si2pgci8.fsf@gnu.org> <567F22B1.9040702@cs.ucla.edu>> <<83poxsh7xv.fsf@gnu.org> > <> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451411235 30285 80.91.229.3 (29 Dec 2015 17:47:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 17:47:15 +0000 (UTC) To: Random832 , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 29 18:47:03 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aDyMP-0003ZA-VS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:47:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49546 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDyMP-0005XE-Bl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:47:01 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55161) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDyMM-0005X7-5B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:46:58 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDyMI-00061X-W3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:46:58 -0500 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:21434) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDyMI-00060n-Ol for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:46:54 -0500 Original-Received: from aserv0021.oracle.com (aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id tBTHkp14017305 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 29 Dec 2015 17:46:51 GMT Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by aserv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBTHkoNY010687 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 29 Dec 2015 17:46:51 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0015.oracle.com (abhmp0015.oracle.com [141.146.116.21]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBTHkoLD023864; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 17:46:50 GMT In-Reply-To: <> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.69 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:197114 Archived-At: > What does `This' actually look like to you? Please post a screenshot. > Or don't, because I can guess; I'm just emphasizing the importance of > considering that these characters don't look the same to everyone. The same is true for curly quotes (or nearly any other chars). Different fonts can, and often do, show the same char differently. Add to that the fact that different users have different needs. Add to that the fact that different users have different notions of beauty or accessibility or visual distinction, or different perceptions. Some will prefer one, for some contexts. Some will prefer another, for some contexts. Some won't care. > And most users, today, use fonts in which `This' does _not_ look fine, > and 'This' looks much better. =20 Define "look fine". Define "looks much better". Specify the tradeoffs between your "look fine/much better" other conditions of usability. The issue is not at all as simple as personal appreciation of whether this or that "looks fine" (OK) or "looks much better."