Bold or Italic?

Which do you prefer to use, bold or italic?


  • Total voters
    40
often times in certain places (like Wikipedia), bold is resevred for a certain function (like your vote), so I usually end up using italics so the syntax isn't messe up.
 
I usually use italics. The emphasis is obvious inline, and it doesn't distract you from another paragraph. If I've got a big point that I want to be drawing attention from another paragraph, I'll use bold, but that's rare.

Also, bold is useful when you're pointing out something in a quote from someone else's post, as italics get eaten and underline has always struck me as unbalanced and tacky.
 
Italics mostly - to me it looks more like I'm stressing the word, whereas with bold it seems like I'm shouting it out. Only really use bold for headings and titles, if I have need to.
 
Neck = no neck.

Neck =

giraffe.jpg
 
Hmm, I wonder if you're right. If slender, tall beasts prefer italic while the more meatier types prefer bold. :hmm:
 
Italics. Probably because I'm old, I see bold generally as bad form. I have transgressed very occasionally myself though, and some of the posters make a good point about italics being lost when quoted in a later post. Must dig out some of the old style guides as a reference (well, maybe if I can be bothered).

Underlining is just about unforgivable - it was originally intended as a direction to the printer to put the phrase in bold. Bold and underlining, is, therefore, a typographical tautology, and dreadfully bad form.

Actually, any time that someone applies more than one of underlining, italics, capitals and bold to the same word, to me it shows that they simply can't get their message to be taken seriously enough just on the worth of the message, and are resorting in desperation for some other method of trying to convince you that their opinion really, really matters, and is really, really right.
 
Italicized text is far more aesthetically pleasing than bold. But for titles, it's bold-italics ftw!
 
Back
Top Bottom