If I'm mixing Arial and TNR, I find I have to reduce Arial to 10 pts to keep
the same line spacing. Also, keep in mind that 12-pt TNR has been standard
only since Word 2000, in which it was changed to be more Web-friendly (a lot
of the changes in Word 2000 were a result of the increasing Webification of
Word). Previous versions used 10-pt TNR as the default font.
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site:
http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.
"Robert M. Franz (RMF)" wrote in message
...
Hi Dan
Dan wrote:
Why's that?
No particular reason. But I've made the experience that, on a given
sheet of paper, designers tend to work with smaller font sizes and more
whitespace than most people. [They fit the same amount of text on the
page, mind you.]
Is 11pt considered the new 'standard' in the modern day? Even
with formal documents like letters and CVs? Thanks.
Of course, this all depends on your font. Personally, I rather use 11pt
or even 10.5 in a letter than 12 (with most non-serif fonts like Arial,
Gill, Meta, etc.).
I would also try to style my CV in a way that it does not look like the
standard Word table, anyway, and yes, I've been using less than 12pt
font size for the bodytext there, too.
Given Office marketshare, 11pt _might_ become the de-facto standard for
many, many documents (depending on how well Office 12 is received ...).
The biggest problem with the default Office settings is not whether they
are bad, mediocre, or good, but that most people use them without a
thought (IMHO :-)).
2cents
Robert
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MS
\ / | MVP
X Against HTML | for
/ \ in e-mail & news | Word