[scribus] Need Arial, Times New Roman Font "equivalents" to look/print nice in PDF

[John Brown]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:05:20 -0500, John Culleton wrote:
>
> On Monday 21 February 2011 14:25:37 John Brown wrote:
> > On John Mon, 21 Feb 2011 13:17:59 -0500,
> >
> > John Culleton wrote:
> > > On Monday 21 February 2011 12:52:35 Rob Oakes wrote:
> > > > Hi Drw,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I personally don't care for either Arial or Times New Roman. I
> > > > think they are significantly overused.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Rob Oakes
> > >
> > > I agree.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Second, because Times is the default for
> > > MSWord it is easily recognizable as the product of an amateur
> > > typographer. So I suggest something outside the Microsoft Windows
> > > collection, such as Bitstream Charter, Minion, Adobe Garamond or
> > > Sabon.
> > > --
> > > John Culleton
> >
> > That is a reason not to use a font? Because the commoners use it?
> >
> > I would think that the work of an amateur typographer will look
> > amateurish whichever font he uses. Similarly, I would expect the
> > work of the professional to look professional regardless.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alias John Brown.
>
>
> Well its a tough world out there. When you submit to a prepub reviewer
> you don't want to give them an extra reason for denying a review.

[snip]

> In Bringhurst I find the passage:
> "When the only font available is Cheltenham or Times Roman the
> typographer must make the most of its virtues...but there is nothing
> to be gained by pretending that Times Roman is Bembo..."
>
> And Felici says simply:
>
> "Times is probably used inappropriately more than any other typeface
> today."
>
> Felici also shows a passage set in TR followed by the same passage set
> in Sabon showing the advantage of the wider face. It looks much less
> crowded.
>
> One more time. There are lots of better choices. It is not a matter of
> being commoners, it is a matter of looking like amateurs. The
> authorities, at least the ones on my shelf, seem to agree.
>
> One nice font that I forgot to mention is Stone.
>
>
> --
> John Culleton

Well, since they don't come more common than I, who can't tell the
difference between Arial and Helvetica, I will take your word for it.

A few questions:

1) Why did the word-processing world settle upon these pitiful, hopeless
fonts Arial and Times New Roman? I suppose the others did it because
Microsoft did, but why did Microsoft choose these fonts?

2) Suppose Microsoft decided that for Office 2015, the default font
will be one of those that you like. Would it still find favour with
Felici, Bringhurst and Company, or would its excellent technical and
artistic qualities suddenly become not so good?

Regards,
Alias John Brown.