On Don, 2017-02-23 at 15:41 -0300, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
It's just really hard on the eyes and makes it really hard to read any text because bold was never intended to be the "regular" default font... no font in the world was designed to be used as bold by default... or italic... or bold/italic... that's why they are "bold" or "italic" and not regular...
It makes sense to have those options just to highlight and outline some parts of the text, but pd's comment do not allow that... so I wonder why the possibility of hardcoding it to bold exists at all... let alone be the default, and if linux people really thought that was nice, I really wonder why and would like to hear about it - I just can't see why so far...
What you are saying is totally plausible, I think, in that it would be strange to use bold as the "normal" weight. However, I do not consider a patch running text. Rather it's diagram of keywords. I do believe it's easier for me to read a patch with bold words in boxes, but maybe this is only esoteric. Maybe it's also that I think bold text is easier on the eyes, because it somewhat sticks out bit from the boxes. With normal weight, both boxes and fonts use 1px wide lines and it's visually messier. Pd-extended solved that by using gray outlines which makes them appear still a bit lighter. Personally, I don't like that Pd-extended's boxes are opaque.
I don't really have a strong point, at the same time I also do not think that one is much worse than the other.
Roman