Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Thick letter L in pdf

Oct 16, 2008 3:38 AM

Hi Again

when i export an indesign file to pdf, any letter L's in the text appear to be very thick and stand out like a sore thumb. is there any reason for this and is it possible to ge rid of this problem.

thanks in advance

Phil
 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 16, 2008 3:50 AM   in reply to UKNewbie
    From my experience it doesn't appear to print differently to normal. Have you tried printing?
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 16, 2008 3:59 AM   in reply to UKNewbie
    Does it change if you zoom in or out? Many times horizontal or vertical strokes will appear to change weight depending on the zoom factor due to the need to use whole screen pixels. Rounding the ratio of stroke weight to resolution at a particular zoom level can cause things to either appear extra thick or disappear entirely on screen.

    Peter
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 16, 2008 4:47 AM   in reply to UKNewbie
    Every font, or just one particular font? Prints that way or just looks
    bad on screen? Capital L or lower case l?

    --
    Kenneth Benson
    Pegasus Type, Inc.
    www.pegtype.com
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 16, 2008 5:45 AM   in reply to UKNewbie
    I can make this happen only if I make a single letter l, convert it to
    outlines, and then copy it and paste it into Indesign.

    Is it possible you're seeing this with fl (ligature) combinations only?

    I want to know if your thick letter ells in Indesign are text or
    graphics. What happens if you use Find/Change to search for the letter
    l? Does it find the thick ones, or does it skip over them?

    And you didn't answer my question: every font, or just one particular font?

    --
    Kenneth Benson
    Pegasus Type, Inc.
    www.pegtype.com
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 16, 2008 6:01 AM   in reply to UKNewbie
    Hi, Phil:

    Peter Spier's reply (#2) is correct, but he doesn't explicitly note that it's an Acrobat or Reader display issue, not an ID error.

    In Acrobat Preference > Page Display > Rendering, there are some options that may be helpful in reducing the effect.

    HTH

    Regards

    Peter Gold
    KnowHow ProServices
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 16, 2008 6:36 AM   in reply to UKNewbie
    >Peter Spier's reply (#2) is correct, but he doesn't explicitly note that it's an Acrobat or Reader display issue, not an ID error.

    I guess I thought that was implicit. Thanks for mentioning it. :)
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 16, 2008 7:04 AM   in reply to UKNewbie
    Every time I've seen this problem, it has been due to someone converting text rendered via fonts to text rendered by "outlines." Solution is simple - don't "outline" text unless there is some type of special effect that you need that can only be achieved in that manner (and there are very few of those).

    - Dov
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 16, 2008 7:08 AM   in reply to UKNewbie
    Copy and pasting of formatted text from Illy to ID will result in the
    text being converted to outlines.

    Bob
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 16, 2009 11:27 AM   in reply to UKNewbie
    I work for a scientific organization. We usually receive images from our authors with the fonts in graphics converted to vector. When we import the images into InDesign, then create a pdf for proof, these graphics ALWAYS show thickened els and ones, no matter what the font was originally.
    If you zoom in about 300%, they will appear correctly, but that's an annoying thing to tell people to do all the time. The pdfs are posted online, and the authors want to see their figures looking correct within the page without this awful distortion.
    I've called tech support at Adobe, but no one has an answer. If someone has a work-around, I'd be glad to hear it.

    Carole
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 16, 2009 11:45 AM   in reply to UKNewbie
    Is it really restricted to the single glyph, or just more noticeable there? Converting to outlines removes the font "hinting" and invariably makes type look bolder.

    I suppose these come in as a variety of formats, some of which may not support font embedding. The best answer is, if possible, embed the font and don't convert to outlines. If that's not possible, you should consider opening the figures in Illustrator (presuming these are files that will open there), and resetting the type.

    Peter
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 17, 2009 2:35 AM   in reply to Peter Spier
    Do all fonts do this? Some fonts are more compatible with rendering in pixels than others, especially at small sizes. I
    am having a constant battle with an organisation that insists on sending promotional e-mails with 8pt Helvetica which
    always looks terrible because the characters adust left or right of their optimum position and so text has clumps of
    characters rather then smooth spacing. Switching to a font designed for viewing on a screen, like Trebuchet or Verdana
    may help. Even the switch from Helvetica to Arial is a noticeable improvement.

    k
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 19, 2009 5:39 AM   in reply to UKNewbie
    That's interesting. I can try a few tests and let you know. Thanks for the suggestion. Helvetica is our most frequently used font for figures. We may have to re-think that if what you're saying is true.

    Carole
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 19, 2009 6:04 AM   in reply to (Carole_G._Saylor)
    That's my personal view. The best thing you can do is to try it and see if it makes a difference for you. I'd be
    interested to know.

    I have come to accept thickened vertical strokes in PDFs as inevitable at low magnification, particularly with sans
    fonts. If you think about how few pixels you have available to render the shape of a character, even with hinting and
    anti-aliasing, it becomes clear that something's got to give. So fonts that have been designed expressly for viewing on
    computer monitors seem likely to have some advantage.

    k
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2009 11:10 PM   in reply to UKNewbie
    This problem occurs only when ALL of the following things are true:

    - the font was converted to outlines

    - the glyphs in question were drawn simple rectangles with no additional points. In a sans serif font often the lowercase el and sometimes the numeral one can be drawn this way.

    Seeing a problem may also require that in Acrobat's Preferences > Page Display > Rendering, "enhance thin lines" is on. But I'm not certain of that one.

    The font being "designed for viewing on screen" or the like will NOT help, except insofar as that design involves more complex shapes for the el and one.

    Regards,

    T
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 9, 2009 1:37 PM   in reply to UKNewbie
    Hi all.

    I stumbled upon this problem at work about 5 months ago as well. After days of troubleshooting & searching on the internet, I found the cause & a fix to the problem on this page:
    http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/004301.html

    This is a rendering bug with Adobe Acrobat/Reader. It only display it as a thicker stroke but it prints fine. If you open the same file on a Mac via the "Preview" application, the problem goes away.

    By turning OFF "Enhance thin lines" in Adobe Reader's preference, you can eliminate the display problem. But since the files I was working on will be distributed to thousands of people over the internet, this was not an option for me.

    If you have Illustrator, the solution would be to add a point to the vertical strokes of all the lowercase "i" & "l". It's a pain & can be time consuming but it works.

    Hope this helps.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 10, 2009 2:16 PM   in reply to etherling

    Thanks Ellam for that advice.

     

    But what I can't understand is - this problem with the thick Ls has been around for ages - years I reckon. What are the developers doing? We've all paid for these expensive updates year in, year out - and still the problem hasn't been fixed. In that time how many thousands of designers must have had to apologise to their clients and explain that the Ls are not supposed to be bold - its just a strange thing that Acrobat/Adobe Reader does?

     

    And, as you say, its not a problem using Preview on the Mac - so its obviously a fixable problem!

     

    The thing is, these days, pdfs aren't just a means to an end - in many cases they are the end product. So they need to look right at any scale - not just 800%!

     

    Just one more thing before I finish my rant: I'm wary of creating pdfs using embedded fonts because years ago I used to do that only to discover that sometimes a different font would display on another PC/Mac. Admittedly I was creating pdfs from Freehand MX 2004. Do you know if embedding in CS4 Illustrator & InDesign is now totally, totally reliable?

     

    Cheers

     

    Nick

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 10, 2009 8:27 PM   in reply to NickLW

    Please don't change the subject line in the thread. Makes it impossible to follow by email.

     

    But what I can't understand is - this problem with the thick Ls has been around for ages - years I reckon. What are the developers doing? We've all paid for these expensive updates year in, year out - and still the problem hasn't been fixed. In that time how many thousands of designers must have had to apologise to their clients and explain that the Ls are not supposed to be bold - its just a strange thing that Acrobat/Adobe Reader does?

    Only those "thousands of designers" who outline their text.

     

    Fact is, this is not a problem with thick Ls. It's a problem with thick *drawings* of Ls. If you outline your type, a lot of ugly things happen. The worst offenders are in the area of rendering for electronic display.

     

    Stop outlining. Start embedding. I've seen font substitution problems in PDFs, but none in the last 10 years. Check proofs before printing. About 1996, a client of mine decided that everything had been working so well she could stop looking at bluelines before signing off on them. She got 20,000 copies of a book printed in all italic (except for the italic text, which printed in roman).

     

    Ken

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 11, 2009 4:23 PM   in reply to Kenneth Benson

    Kenneth C. Benson wrote:

    About 1996, a client of mine decided that everything had been working so well she could stop looking at bluelines before signing off on them. She got 20,000 copies of a book printed in all italic (except for the italic text, which printed in roman).

    It caused me actual pain to read that. What a nightmare.....

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2009 3:26 AM   in reply to Kenneth Benson

    Hi Kenneth

     

    Thanks for your reply. I will embed text in the future but your example of the 'italic book' just confirms that pdfs - embedded or otherwise are still not completely reliable. You mention 'bluelines' - do you mean printed proofs? Problem is that, in my neck of the woods, printers are abandoning all forms of paper proofs and just sending pdfs to sign off. I had a job recently where I sent the printer an InDesign pdf. The printer then sent me their paginated pdf. I approved it and the job was printed. When I got the job back there were two lines of text missing. I checked the proof that I'd signed off and the text was there (This text wasn't embedded - it was part of a placed illustrator file that had been converted to paths). Anyway I got on the phone to the printer ready to play hell with him only to discover that when he viewed exactly the same pdf, he couldn't see the extra text - so he never new it was there!

     

    So I originally sent him a pdf where I could see the extra text.

    ... He received it but he couldn't see the extra text.

    ... He sent me his paginated pdf for approval - and I could see the text.

     

    - Neither of us new the other was seeing the text differently. So I couldn't sue him because all his records showed the extra text never existed. And the proof that I approved - as far as he was concerned - never had the extra text on it.

     

    Anyway, since then, I've always sent an additional set of jpegs of each page and said I'm only approving the job on the basis that they have checked that the jpegs match the pdf. But it's far from ideal and I'm not sure what legal rights I'd have if there was a similar print problem again.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2009 5:39 AM   in reply to NickLW

    White text on a dark background by chance? If so, and you still have the file, check to see if it's set to overprint in Illustrator?

     

    Bob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2009 6:59 AM   in reply to Bob Levine

    Bob - Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!

     

    You're right. And I've now set up Illustrator, InDesign and Acrobat Pro to spot the problem in future. Obviously my printer must have had his version of Acrobat Pro set to Preferences - Page Display - Use Overprint Preview - Always.

     

    The mystery solved at last!

     

    And the root of the problem: Freehand. The Illustrator file was originally a Freehand file with the fonts outlined in Freehand before it ever got to Illustrator. And Freehand was always notorious for turning colours to overprint when outlining.

     

    Cheers!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2009 7:08 AM   in reply to NickLW

    You mention 'bluelines' - do you mean printed proofs?

    Yes.

     

    If your printer won't send you paper proofs, maybe you need a new printer. I've worked with printers in China who send paper proofs.

     

    It's easy enough to rasterize a perfectly good vector PDF if you have Acrobat Pro. Export a PDF from Indesign. Open it in Acrobat Pro. Print to the Adobe PDF printer and turn on Print as Image. The resulting PDF will have no fonts embedded, no vector data, just rasters. Much easier than making truckloads of jpegs. Of course, this is going to limit the PDF to, I think, 600 dpi, so you would want to instruct your printer to use this for proofing purposes only. And you yourself should check it against the full vector PDF with embedded fonts before you send it out.

     

    BTW, the example I gave you happened 13 years ago, using probably Acrobat 3. Things have gotten better since then. The purpose of the example was not to prove that PDF is fallible; it was to illustrator the necessity of checking proofs. The truth is that PDF is amazing, but we all know there is no perfect software, especially when it's being written and used by humans, a particularly imperfect species.

     

    Ken

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2009 9:14 AM   in reply to Kenneth Benson

    Thanks Kenneth for your advice.

     

    I'll certainly have a go at your procedure for rasterizing pdfs for proof purposes.

     

    You'll see in the reply above that Bob Levine has solved the mystery of my missing text.

     

    So all in all I'm now feeling a lot more positive about working with pdfs!

     

    Cheers

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 25, 2011 9:01 PM   in reply to UKNewbie

    Hi everyone - I've doscovered a solution. I hope it works for other people as well. (As it was happening to me a hell of a lot)

     

    I am using InDesign CS3 btw.

     

    Instead of selecting the "print" to PDF option from the file menu - select the "Export" option - then export the document to PDF and the rendering issue should disappear entirely.

     

    It really was that simple - no rasterizing, no create outlines or not creating outlines - no issues between copying and pasting text from other sources - just export the document rather than selecting to print the document.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 26, 2011 12:03 AM   in reply to NDEVR

    I often get that thick letter 'l' and I always export...it doesn't print out

    that way, though.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 11, 2012 8:09 AM   in reply to sssuuusssaaannn

    In doing some tests, I've found this thickness issue occurs with any basic rectangle shape, whether it's from a sans serif font converted to outlines, or if I draw a thinly shaped rectangle in Illustrator or InDesign. It appears more so at smaller zoom sizes where Acrobat avoids adding any anti-alias smoothing.

     

    These shapes render correctly in Acrobat Pro (Mac v.9.5.0) if you turn off "Enhance thin lines" found under Preferences > Page Display > Rendering

     

    Since it would be difficult to ask all end users of a PDF being sent out to turn this "feature" off, I have discovered that the issue can be resolved with either of these two ways:

     

    - Add an extra point (without altering the appearance) to the rectangle shape's edges, so it's no longer just 4 vector points. It'll still visually appear as a straight rectangle, but Acrobat must view it as a polygon now instead of a rectangle and adds proper anti-alias smoothing.

     

    - With logos or type, make all the letters a compound path (In Illustrator choose Object menu > Compound Path > Make). This is why a lowercase i doesn't have problems. The dot is already a compound path with it's rectangle below.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2013 10:52 AM   in reply to Mattw0023

    Nice summary, Mattw0023. I've been horrified by this problem in PDFs for many years, and I've sought solutions (or at least explanations) now and then, without success. But this thread (and a few of its links) certainly nails it.

     

    Even though savvy PDF creators now know how to eliminate the problem (albeit sometimes with font editing or unacceptably tedious hand editing), and even though savvy PDF readers now know to turn off Enhance thin lines, it's utterly amazing to me that the Acrobat team hasn't fixed this problem. The problem again came to my attention most grotesquely this morning when I received my PDF of the 2013 February issue of Scientific American. There are several pages right at the beginning which are peppered with dozens of gigantic sans-serif ones and lower-case els, so much so that the whole page looks like a cruel joke on the publisher.

     

    The same issue also displays tons of examples of jagged baselines, especially with one of their main fonts (BrunelDeck Bold, 10pt.) which looks terrible well into high magnifications.

     

    Clearly, Scientific American would be shocked to see how bad their PDF magazine looks to many of their customers, and I'm sure somebody at Adobe would be equally chagrinned to see how just a tiny bit of ignorance on the part of legions of end-users, or just a tiny bit of ignorance on the part of numerous respected publishers, is producing such a clunky unprofessional result. We may speculate on why the magazine hasn't managed to eliminate the problem, but ultimately (and rightfully) it all reflects on Acrobat, which is a shame, since it's the only near-universal page display format we have. The fact that this problem has been around, unfixed, for many years just makes the whole situation more astonishing.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2013 11:03 AM   in reply to ashtangakasha

    ashtangakasha,

     

    You seem to imply that this is a problem that Adobe can resolve? Given the quite old thread that you re-opened fairly well sums up the issues as really issues of font design, outlining, etc., none of which are under the control of Acrobat/Reader, what do you suggest Adobe do to “fix” this problem?

     

              - Dov

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2013 7:52 PM   in reply to Dov Isaacs

    Hi Dov,

     

    Well, I didn't mean to imply that Adobe could solve this problem -- I meant that Adobe most certainly can and should solve this problem. It's slightly ridiculous that an app specifically designed to provide precise representation of typography and graphics would tolerate, without warning, such an egregious violation of accurate reproduction.

     

    Note that many commenters in this old thread (for an old problem) point out that other text rendering engines (e.g., Apple's) don't have this problem. Note also that everyone has found that when printed, there is no problem. This suggests that the problem can be solved, not that we have to provide special instructions as a work-around.

     

    The essence of it seems to be a choice the Acrobat developers made long ago concerning how "four-anchor-point" rectangles should be rendered. Coupled with the "enhance thin lines" feature, outlined rectangular glyphs end up looking terribly inaccurate. If this isn't an obscure technical glitch, then I don't know what is. Surely you don't believe end-users should have to be warned about this kind of thing?

     

    If the problem is, as you imply, not Adobe's, then the solution is a classic waste of resources -- thousands of end-users and PDF creators must be taught to accomodate a short-coming in something that one or two programmers could resolve. PDFs are being used more and more as end products, not just for print preview or document interchange, and converting to outlines is a perfectly rational thing to do. Since it's not an error in the outline conversion, why not give the venerable Acrobat engine a tweak so that it's not causing problems for anyone? (Of course, the real tweak isn't in the engine itself, but merely in the implementation of Enhance Thin Lines.)

     

    If nothing else, why not make ETL (a) not the default, and (b) insert a note to the user alongside the setting ("May cause small rectangles to render inaccurately"). I'm certain that if even just this small concession were made, anyone noticing that note would probably slap his/her forehead and exclaim, "So that's what was causing that!"

     

    Considering the swift and ubiquitous trend towards higher resolution displays, perhaps the ETL feature itself is obsolete. (Its only real purpose, as far as I can tell, is to prevent fine lines from disappearing, and there are almost certainly better algorithms for doing that.)

     

    Although the thread is indeed old, it was especially helpful. I've been running into the issue it addresses consistently for about a decade. Isn't it at all relevant that people still need this information? Adobe can certainly fix this problem.

     

    Respectfully,

     

    Allen

     

    [changed "four-control-point" to "four-anchor-point" - ac]

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2013 11:55 AM   in reply to Dov Isaacs

    Yes, this is a rendering (anti-aliasing) bug/flaw that Acrobat introduced back around version 5. Older versions of Acrobat did not have this issue. So, I do believe it is up to the Acrobat team to correct this issue they introduced.

     

    I've attached a screen shot from Acrobat and Preview to see the difference. The rectangluar outlines should be anti-aliased.

    Acrobat-Render-Test.png

     

    If you have a PDF with a lowercase "L" as type, Acrobat will anti-alias (smooth) it's edges correctly. If you convert this type to outlines or draw a thin recangular shape, Acrobat stops anti-aliasing these paths, which makes them appear innacurately thicker and out of place next to other complex paths.

     

    It stems from the "Enance Thin Lines" preference which is useful for making the onscreen appearance of thin strokes remain bold by not anti-aliasing them into nothing. The solution is that Acrobat should only "enhance" strokes, but not rectangles as it once did in older versions.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 19, 2013 10:23 AM   in reply to ashtangakasha

    Hear Hear!

     

    I completely agree Ashtangakasha.

     

    Adobe have known about this problem since at least 2008 - probably some time before that. It's inexcusable that they haven't fixed it yet.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 19, 2013 10:36 AM   in reply to NickLW

    Why is this an issue if it's for print only?

     

    Seriously, you already know you shouldn't be doing this anyway. If you

    need a PDF for screen just create one.

     

    You can't begin to tell me that a press ready PDF with outlined type is

    going to be preferred to one optimized for online viewing with real type.

     

    Finally, this isn't an InDesign issue, it's an Acrobat issue and should

    probably be discussed in the Acrobat forum.

     

    Bob

     

    NickLW <mailto:forums_noreply@adobe.com>

    Saturday, January 19, 2013 1:22 PM

     

    >

          Re: Thick letter L in pdf

     

    created by NickLW <http://forums.adobe.com/people/NickLW> in

    /InDesign/ - View the full discussion

    <http://forums.adobe.com/message/5007008#5007008

     

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 19, 2013 11:05 AM   in reply to Bob Levine

    Bob, I completely agree that this discussion should be on the Acrobat forum. But I couldn't resist responding to Matt's summary of the situation. That precipitated further discussion, which was also hard to resist. And your post is also irresistible. It's a catch-22! What's a lad to do?

     

    Why is this an issue if it's for print only? Well, for one thing, people send PDFs back and forth as "soft proofs" all the time, and the "four-anchor-rectangle" bug causes enough confusion to be worth fixing.

     

    A press-ready PDF with outlined type is indeed preferred by many a quick-print service center. Perhaps you just deal with the top-flight print houses; I have to work with what's available in small towns, many of whom can't print their way out of a paper bag. (To coin a phrase.)

     

    As for "shouldn't be doing this anyway," well, gee, I'm really sorry. I'll be sure everyone involved is dealt with, but since some of them are paying for "doing this," I have to go easy on them.

     

    And I promise that I won't post any more replies on this thread. (Unless the temptation is truly irresistible.)

     

    Allen

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 24, 2014 8:50 AM   in reply to ashtangakasha

    Thanks for everyone's explanations above.  This acrobat issue hits us on both Illy and Id. 

     

    I'll look for an acrobat thread, but in case anyone is on the fence regarding the need for a fix... a number of printers, of various sizes and capabilities, want outlined text, as do we as designers for the final file.

     

    Clients will often review the final print files prior to prodcuction (not just a "preview), and in some cases are responsible for the actual submission.  In every case, they will waste all parties' time by having to call about the strange bold letters .  And in every case, we waste time going back to double check that we didn't really "mis-bold" something this time.  Then, the client may have to try to explain it to their supervisor and/or business partner who may or may not grasp it, and so on.

     

    It's easy to just render out alternative image formats for everyone's preview, but there will periodically be (an often legitimate) need for dissemination of the final print files to lay pesons. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 24, 2014 9:03 AM   in reply to 5O\'ClockCharlie

    This thread is a year old and the fact remains that outlining type is wrong. If you insist on doing it, you’ll have to live with the consequences.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 24, 2014 10:08 PM   in reply to Bob Levine

    Bob Levine schrieb:

     

    This thread is a year old and the fact remains that outlining type is wrong. If you insist on doing it, you’ll have to live with the consequences.

    I completly agree.

    Outlining causes not only a problem with L or I or l or - or – or —, but also with the loss of automatic numbers, paragraph rules, underlines, strikethrough, bullets, text frames, strokes and a lot more. There is no reason to outline fonts, avoid it and you will not run into problems where rectangle glyphs are converted into a line with 2 anchors which will end up in a bad screen experience.

     

    (This thread is not 1 year old, it is 6 years since this thread has started!)

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)