Talk:Emphasis (typography)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Bold is also the name of an American hardcore punk band on Revelation Records."

I deleted the above because it didn't really seem to belong in an article about Emphasis (typography).Chuck 20:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's because "Bold" redirects to this page. I created a disambiguation page, therefore. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:54, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Emphasis in other languages

Cyrillic also uses italics but several lowercase letters are very different in their italic form than their normal form. Notably the Cyrillic "b", "g", "i", "p", "t". For those with appropriate fonts:

в г и п т -> в г и п т

This is surely noticed more by English-speakers trying to learn Russian than to native speakers. Apparently Bulgarian or another Cyrillic-using language uses different italic forms of some letters to what is used in Russian and this has been an issue in Unicode, at least for some.

Japanese places a series of dots along the words/letters. I think they're at the bottom of horizontal text and to the left of vertical text. I do not know whether Chinese or Korean use or have used this technique.

Hebrew did not traditionally have italics but does so in the modern age. Despite the fact that Hebrew text runs from right to left, Hebrew italics still slope in the same direction as Latin italics.

Arabic can make use of kashidas which space out the letters in a word but this is probably more to do with justification in body text and stylization in logos.

— Hippietrail 15:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] about cut

I cut this:

The example text reads: "An example of German text in Fraktur in which a portion of the text is spaced out. It is noticed, as with boldface, clearly as opposed to the rest of the text.

The example text wasn't that, it was a text about pianos. Zeimusu | Talk page 11:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. RIght. But the example text is not even an example of letterspacing, it is an example of using a different kind of fraktur face for emphasis. Weird.—Gniw (Wing) 15:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I have just moved that example to where it belongs (way up in the article). Someone can find a real example of letterspacing in blackletter.—Gniw (Wing) 21:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a request for a citation of Nazi Germany's abolishment of blackletter faces in 1942; though I don't really doubt it, it'd be interesting and helpful to have more detail on that.

[edit] Not aggry with this redirect

emphasis is not necessary in bold. For example, in HTML, by default on many web browser, the tag <em> (accronym for emphasis) is displayed in italic non bold. And bold can have many semantique usage. For example, in a bold text, a single world in normal font weight will be, in a way, highlighted. This article should be rename Bold and one could be created for emphasis as it's a more abstract notion. [[1]]

[edit] Eyeballs

Figure 1 says boldface attracts the human eyeball. That sounds a little weird, shouldn't it be eye instead ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.103.11.58 (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Nonsensical Reference to Fig. 1

The text says, 'As can be seen in Fig. 1, the "w" letter, for example, looks quite different in italic compared to the regular typeface,' but Fig. 1 doesn't support this. It shows a sample of a sans-serif type where the there is little or no apparent difference between the roman and italic forms (other than slantedness). What's more, there's no lowercase roman 'w' to compare with the italic.

I couldn't find any previous version where this made sense, although it does appear the image was changed on 10 Sept 2006. Perhaps that editor introduced the inconsistency without realizing it? Ezrakilty 20:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe whatever it is that is rendering the svg is incorrectly rendering the italic text as oblique (or whoever "corrected" the image into svg marked the text as oblique rather than italic; or the svg format itself fails to make a distinction between the two?). Unfortunately the original png is gone so we can't revert to the original image. Shame. 138.38.148.251 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)