Greg Kramer's “Cerebreality” article on flaming was truly 
outstanding. He expressed exactly what I've been feeling for 
the last several months. Like Greg Kramer, I've learned not to 
react to online rants, and have even stopped myself from posting 
what, in a more civilized world, would have been a completely 
called-for rebuttal. It's just not worth it.

If I may, I'd like to propose an additional theory. I think that most 
Internet users are inclined to misunderstand a message because 
they scan text instead of reading it carefully in order to save on 
connection charges. I have no statistics to prove it, but I suspect 
that the majority of AOL members and the like have not been ini-
tiated into the joys of reading and composing messages offline. 
Consequently, as Greg Kramer stated, possessing writing skills 
does not guarantee that you will be understood; I'd go as far as to 
say that a well-crafted message is more likely to be misinter-
preted, because a quick scan of it would not bring out the little 
nuances and witticisms (which would probably be beyond some 
of these people anyway).

Kramer's article ought to be included in newsgroup FAQs as 
required reading. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone reads those 
things. Besides, even if they did, they'd most likely take offense 
and flame him again!

Raul Regalado, via America Online

Wow. What a great commentary. Greg Kramer hits on this topic 
with such rationality and common sense.  I couldn't agree more 
with what was written, and his story worries me about the 
future of society on the ’Net, because for some reason, every-
body likes to flame.  It is  ridiculous, and yet it continues daily.  
Thanks for the informative  article. I will pass around a copy for 
others to read...

Ken Schwartzreich, via the Internet

 

 

I've just seen your publication for the first time. Wow! You've 
really done a wonderful job, not only with the content, but also 
with the online aspects.

I have a question: the biggest problem in Web design right now 
seems to be how to optimize text in online graphics. The text in 
your graphics is very sharp, and I was wondering if you use any 
particular techniques to go about optimizing it. I'm sure the entire 
Web community would be very interested in this. I've seen a 
number of sites that deal with low-memory graphics and cross-
platform designing, but I have yet to find a site that discusses 
optimal text graphics.

Well, thanks again, and I'll be sure to include your publication on 
my  home page hotlist. Keep up the great work!

John Cady, via the Internet

Thanks for your compliments! To make our online text, we use 
Adobe Photoshop's text tool, with anti aliasing. Anti-aliasing 
smooths the edges of the text, approximating colors and giving 
the text a "blurred" look which removes jagged edges. This, 
however, is not enough to get "optimized" text. You really have 
to search, through trial and error, for a font that reads well at 
a small size with anti aliasing. Not all do. Times Roman at a small 
size and anti-aliasing will be very hard to read. You're better 
off with bolder, san-serif fonts that have a heavy weight—but 
whose internal spaces (i.e., the inside of an "o") remain well 
defined. — ED.

 

 

Thanks for a great product/service!  I have been reading the 
online mag for the past year or so, and it keeps getting better.  
I am a subscriber to the CD-ROM version, and it is by far the 
best mag I have read (paper, electronic, or other!).

Your innovations in bringing current Mac topics to the masses are 
creative and fun for the readers, and your shareware library (on 
the CD) is indispensable.  It saves many hours of hunting and 
downloading OS updates, etc.

Thanks again, I look forward to the next issue!

Tom Morrissey, via the Internet

 

We'd like to hear from you. If you'd like to comment on 
anything you've read in MacSense, please send us email 
at MacSenseED@aol.com. We reserve the right to edit 
letters for length and clarity.