That explanation doesn’t make much sense, either. The poster is talking about character spacing and confusing it with kerning, as I said in post #18.
“The poster” (Jeff) is the just the first person discussing kerning. There are 42 more comments, including:
[QUOTE=Kevin]
As a result, in traditional typography this would not be called “poor kerning” because no kerning was involved nor was any called for. I’m not sure there was a specific term for this type of mistake; it probably just fell into the general class of “typo.”
However, computer typography has usurped the term “kerning” to apply to any adjustment of the inter-letter spacing, whether positive or negative and also whether done on a pair-by-pair basis or generally throughout a run of text. As a result, in modern parlance this could be called “poor kerning.”
However, computer typography has usurped the term “kerning” to apply to any adjustment of the inter-letter spacing, whether positive or negative and also whether done on a pair-by-pair basis or generally throughout a run of text. As a result, in modern parlance this could be called “poor kerning.”
[/QUOTE]
And includes a surprisingly fun kearning game. (92/100)
sigh Always a bride’s maid, never a bride.
94/100, including three 100s 