On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Magnus Ihse wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Peter Putzer wrote:
> 
> > > Bold text is usually more readable than plain, on a computer
> > > screen. Depending on typeface, of course.
> > 
> > Please, I think it was clear what I meant.
> 
> Obviously not, since I don't understand what you mean, in that
> case. I thought the original poster (whoever that was) said that it
> was better to mark important words with typeface changes, and I agree
> with that, as long as readability isn't affected. You gave examples
> like "red and blinking" which is obviously bad examples; but that
> does not mean that _good_ changes of style (i.e. bold) is good ways
> of marking important words.

My example may not have been the best, his wasn't very good either.

> > Besides, <em> is italic, which is not easy to read.
> 
> Yeah, italics sucks, but that does not mean that boldface sucks.

It does not, but IMHO it's TOO eye-catching.

> Let me restate what I've already said:
> As far as I know, the ONLY language where you ever write Some Words
> There IS no way of seperating between "title style" and "normal
> style" in Swedish. In fact, the concept of "title style" does just
> not apply. And this is true of all other languages I know of, except
> English.

Which is in fact irrelevant, as KDE apps are written first in US English
and translated later.

bye,
Peter