X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f996b,ce84c7c1d94e2f X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-16 08:11:07 PST Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art From: Harry Mason Subject: Re: ascii References: <3c452ee5.35810484@news.earthlink.net> Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.2 (Linux) NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.78.71.90 Date: 16 Jan 2002 16:07:59 GMT X-Trace: 16 Jan 2002 16:07:59 GMT, 152.78.71.90 Lines: 10 Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.online.be!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!server3.netnews.ja.net!news-spool.soton.ac.uk!news.ecs.soton.ac.uk!152.78.71.90 Xref: archiver1.google.com alt.ascii-art:13812 On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 07:45:20 GMT, rayo@number.net wrote: > I am still waiting for some master artist to try Times Roman The reason ascii artists use fixed width fonts is that they're visible on all systems and look roughly the same. If you try to view variable-width art with even a slightly different font than the creator used, it's often completely unintelligible. -- Harry Mason ("hjm200.ecs@soton@ac@uk" =~ tr/@./.@/)