<< I would
eagerly and enthusiastically wring the neck of the typographer -- a fact
not entirely irrelevant when speaking of usefulness and joy of a book.
It is, at least for me, nearly illegible. The body copy is in a whisper-
thin sans serif type. So "elegant", so blear-making. And really I'm not
blind -- yet -- tho I fear this read could make me.
The photo captions, with a good deal of extra fact and data (I think,
can't tell for sure because I can't read them), will require -- I kid you
not -- a magnifying glass to read. Six point type I wot, the lines
thinner than a microbe's antenna, smaller than your average photo credit.
I am so sad. >>
Judy
I'm at an age where I need reading glasses for many books and magazines, but
the body type used in this book although small, is so clear that I can manage
without if I need to.
The captions are, as you say excessively small. However the pair of the lowest
dioptre glasses from my local chemists at around 5 dollars cope sith these far
more easily than using a magnifying glass.
I find a somewhat stronger pair indispensable for spotting prints. For most
close working tasks they are a far better alternative to a magnifying glass,
and also cheaper.
Peter Marshall
On Fixing Shadows, Dragonfire and elsewhere:
http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~ds8s/
Family Pictures & Gay Pride: http://www.dragonfire.net/~gallery/
and: http://www.speltlib.demon.co.uk/