> I did not intentionally change those elements, but I am noticing that
the fonts come up sharper in the 'fixed' version.
Well, the font is changed completely. The original looks more like an
"Ubuntu font"? I don't think that should be changed.
> From your example, the color range appears improved and the fonts
appear sharper. I had not intended on that change, but I hope it is an
improvement, albeit an unintentional one on my part.
I agree that the colors on the fixed version look better, but I wonder
what caused that change. Maybe the gamma information was lost?
> One issue as mentioned in some of the other bug reports, it is obvious
that these files were created with the proprietary Adobe Acrobat.
They were created with "Adobe InDesign CS3 (5.0)", according to the
metadata in the files. It would be nice (and probably necessary for
legal reasons) if copyright information were included with the files, so
we could contact the original author. It would be even nicer if the
files were created in an open source program so that we could edit them
to fix errors like this.
> I think keeping it consistent among the documents is preferable, not
to mention more balanced ("Ubuntu" with "Linux for Human Beings" is
perfectly centred).
Yeah, I don't see any problem with making them consistent. I don't know
who makes the final decision on these things, though.
--
2 Typos in case_Wellcome.pdf
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/342362
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
