Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Hi,
Be warned, this entire reply does not answer any questions ;-)
OK
Jano Kula wrote:
Not always. A year ago a graphic designer used it a quiet creative way in the book of interviews. All the questions or persons were underlined, often hyphenated. It was an experiment and it worked. By the way, some of the caption and figure alingment Mojca asked for was used there also. I've put few sample pages here (done in LaTeX):
http://web.iol.cz/kula/sample.pdf (1,5MB).
Perhaps I am way too old-fashioned, but that looks rather ugly to me.
Sure you are ;) Modern designs are modern designs. But don't worry you are not the only one. We have spent many hours, did many experiments and I was afraid of using it also. The result was a pragmatic solution when all the possibilities mentioned below were not usable in the book with many different situations we needed to handle. I was very suprised when the designer (experienced, respected and well aware of typography history and present) came up with this solution. I can't say I like it, but in print it wasn't that ugly as I was expecting. What I liked more than this solution was the courage to breake the rules we are all aware of (btw, like Godard used to do in his films; the book is a collection of interviews with him).
So not for emphasis but as a graphic element it is -- and will be -- used.
IMO,
graphic element == emphasis
Imagine the form with prescribed empty lines (lines, dots, dashes) and the pieces of predifined text on them in the schoolbook.
Backgrounds, colorization, larger or different typeface, indentation, additional vertical space, they are all tools to draw extra attention to particular bits of the text.
Hence, whether we like it or not, we must be able to use underlining. Greetings, Jano