 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneralPHPASPPerlColdFusionFlashHTML, CSS, ScriptsBrowsers |
Webmaster Forum / HTML, CSS, Scripts / CSS / March 2005Verdana font. Why not?
I am a bit curious about this. The graphic design people I work with say it is their preferred font for web pages. The reason being that it is "kinder" to the eye both in terms of shape and size. The HTML "hardcore elititst" profess that it is a useless font because it is too big compared to other fonts. Personally I do not care one way or the other, but I generally trust graphic designers more than programmers and rules lawyers when it comes to pure design. It seems to me that the only argument against using Verdana is that a large number of browsers do not support it and therefore it causes their pages to render with a very small font. Can anyone honestly say they do not have the Verdana font installed? > I am a bit curious about this. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Can anyone honestly say they do not have the Verdana font installed? I'll guess most Windows systems have also Verdana, about other systems (like Mac and Linux) I'm not sure. You should not use pixels (or points) for font size, and leave to the user to see the font in prefered (default) size. Under sutch circumstances I'll guess it's possible to use Verdana, even if it's not a prefered font.  Signature/Arne Proud User of Mozilla Suite. Get your free copy here: *English* http://www.mozilla.org/products/mozilla1.x/ *Svenska* http://www.mozilla.se/mozilla.shtml >>I am a bit curious about this. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>graphic designers more than programmers and rules lawyers when it comes >>to pure design. The problems with Verdana aren't a question of pure design, which is why the graphic designers don't have the whole story. By way of exaggerating the situation so as to illustrate the point: if a font were configured so that, when "10pt" was specified, the letters were two centimeters high (or, alternatively, one millimeter high), it would be a problem, no matter how pleasing the font might be to the eye. > The problems with Verdana aren't a question of pure design, which is why > the graphic designers don't have the whole story. By way of exaggerating > the situation so as to illustrate the point: if a font were configured > so that, when "10pt" was specified, the letters were two centimeters > high (or, alternatively, one millimeter high), it would be a problem, no > matter how pleasing the font might be to the eye. I have browsed the web since before graphic browsers. I have worked on old and new lap tops and PCs, with huge monitors and tiny displays. I have never experienced the phenomena you describe. For those that do not know: 1pt = 1/72 inch. 10pt means 10px in a 72dpi display and around 20px in a 144dpi display. in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?ISO-8859- 1?Q?St=E5le_S=E6b=F8e?= wrote: > > The problems with Verdana aren't a question of pure design, which is why > > the graphic designers don't have the whole story. By way of exaggerating [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I have browsed the web since before graphic browsers. Then you know how it worked just fine without ever setting font size. Of course, you needed a machine that had text size big enough for you to read, but after that, it was OK. > I have worked on > old and new lap tops and PCs, with huge monitors and tiny displays. I > have never experienced the phenomena you describe. Propably you have enough clue to actually set the ppi setting of you OS. Or you just never actually used very high ppi screen. Huge monitor vs small one is not issue. Neither is it new lap top vs desktop. It is the resolution that is used. The high ppi displays are still somewhat rare. > For those that do not know: 1pt = 1/72 inch. 10pt means 10px in a 72dpi > display and around 20px in a 144dpi display. But, usually setting is 96ppi in both displays, so you get something like 12px in both systems. Or someone has set his ppi incorrectly in order to see pt units in size they like (in windows, this is most natural, as the ppi setting is not supposed to be correct...) And, if you have 21" monitor just because you have vision problems, 10pt is still 10 * 1/72 inch, which is 3.5mm (assuming you would set ppi correctly). That is not too big. Of course anyone actually using it for that reason won't use ppi setting that would get right results, but somthing that gives them better results. Which kind of proves that pt unit is no good. And setting that setting wrong is not option for people that actually need correct display of pt units, like graphical designers. Who are, BTW, most likely to use expensive high ppi screens... SignatureLauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts> Utrecht, NL. >> The problems with Verdana aren't a question of pure design, which is >> why the graphic designers don't have the whole story. By way of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > old and new lap tops and PCs, with huge monitors and tiny displays. I > have never experienced the phenomena you describe. Since I said it was an exaggeration to illustrate the point, I didn't expect you would ever have encountered it. Please read what I wrote again. >>> The problems with Verdana aren't a question of pure design, which is >>> why the graphic designers don't have the whole story. By way of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Since I said it was an exaggeration to illustrate the point, I didn't > expect you would ever have encountered it. Please read what I wrote again. Well then the point was poorly illustrated, which was my point ;) Much better to use a real life example. >I am a bit curious about this. > >The graphic design people I work with say it is their preferred font for >web pages. The reason being that it is "kinder" to the eye both in terms >of shape and size. What size are they suggesting it be used at? If Verdana at the browser default size is the look they are after then go for it. If they're suggesting that it be used at a smaller font size then they are in fact agreeing with... >The HTML "hardcore elititst" profess that it is a useless font because >it is too big compared to other fonts. Use Verdana, set a font-size that makes Verdana look right to you. Now delete Verdana from your system (or just comment it out in your stylesheet). Does the text still look right with your fallback font? >Personally I do not care one way or the other, but I generally trust >graphic designers more than programmers and rules lawyers when it comes >to pure design. Ah but who do you trust on matters of accessibility and usability? >It seems to me that the only argument against using Verdana is that a >large number of browsers do not support it and therefore it causes their >pages to render with a very small font. Not "a large number", just "a number". >Can anyone honestly say they do not have the Verdana font installed? According to http://www.visibone.com/font/FontResults.html 98% of users have Verdana installed. Steve Signature"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/> >Use Verdana, set a font-size that makes Verdana look right to you. Now >delete Verdana from your system (or just comment it out in your >stylesheet). Does the text still look right with your fallback font? For me that test isn't convincing if the font size is set at 86%. Some other tests: Using a browser that has an appropriately sized serif font specified as the default font, create a page that uses a Verdana font, size it so that it looks nice. Now configure Verdana as you preferred font in your browser's preferences, set the default size so that it looks right with a webpage that does not specify a font size. Now view the page where you use the sized Verdana font. Take the Verdana page from the previous example and view it on a computer with a high resolution screen like the Dell Inspiron 9300 Laptops with the WUXGA option (resolution is approx 150PPI), using the out of the box browser serif font setting. Both tests result in nigh unreadable text. The last test is very useful to convince designers and clients of the error of their ways, it doesn't take much imagination to see that type of computer in the hands of the higher echelons of the corporate world, the type of people that can make or break the success of a web site. SignatureSpartanicus >>Use Verdana, set a font-size that makes Verdana look right to you. Now >>delete Verdana from your system (or just comment it out in your >>stylesheet). Does the text still look right with your fallback font? > >For me that test isn't convincing if the font size is set at 86%. 86% is larger than most designers I've encountered would like with Verdana. Typically they suggest sizes that work out as 55%-75%. [snip good advice] Steve Signature"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/> > For me that test isn't convincing if the font size is set at 86%. Why not 100%? > Take the Verdana page from the previous example and view it on a > computer with a high resolution screen like the Dell Inspiron 9300 > Laptops with the WUXGA option (resolution is approx 150PPI), using the > out of the box browser serif font setting. I do not downsize the Verdana font for the main texts. It is perfectly fine with 100%. I use 120 PPI myself and have no problem with 100% Verdana. >> For me that test isn't convincing if the font size is set at 86%. > >Why not 100%? Because if the text is at 100% there's no problem. The fallback font will be displayed just fine. The normal situation is that designers want Verdana displayed at some smaller size (typically 9px - 12px compared with the common browser default of 16px). In those case Verdana may be legible but the fallback font often isn't. >> Take the Verdana page from the previous example and view it on a >> computer with a high resolution screen like the Dell Inspiron 9300 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I do not downsize the Verdana font for the main texts. It is perfectly >fine with 100%. I use 120 PPI myself and have no problem with 100% Verdana. Of course you don't. That's not the problem. The problem is when you specify Verdana and specify a smaller than default font size. Then you get a problem when Verdana is removed. But most designers think that Verdana at 100% looks too big and so insist on a smaller size. Heck, often designers insist that Arial or TNR at 100% is too big... Steve Signature"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/> > Of course you don't. That's not the problem. The problem is when you > specify Verdana and specify a smaller than default font size. Then you > get a problem when Verdana is removed. Some common ones arranged by size: http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/fonts-face-samplesExtS.html > But most designers think that Verdana at 100% looks too big and so > insist on a smaller size. Heck, often designers insist that Arial or > TNR at 100% is too big... I think "often" is a gross understatement: http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/shame.html Signature"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you." Matthew 7:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ "Felix Miata" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets: >Some common ones arranged by size: >http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/fonts-face-samplesExtS.html I find it rather difficult to believe that Bodoni and Futura are supposed to look the same. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ > "Felix Miata" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets: >>Some common ones arranged by size: >>http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/fonts-face-samplesExtS.html > > I find it rather difficult to believe that Bodoni and Futura are > supposed to look the same. Do they perchance look much like your default font? ;) SignatureReply email address is a bottomless spam bucket. Please reply to the group so everyone can share. "kchayka" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets: >> "Felix Miata" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets: >>>Some common ones arranged by size: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Do they perchance look much like your default font? ;) Indeed they do! As you perceived, my point was that a Web page that purports to show the appearance of different fonts had better offer an image. Stephen Poley?s Verdana page <http://www.xs4all.nl/ ~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html> does a nice job, showing both the image and what the visitor?s browser does with the various font specifications. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ >I do not downsize the Verdana font for the main texts. It is perfectly >fine with 100%. I use 120 PPI myself and have no problem with 100% Verdana. Your screen resolution causes you to see things differently than most people, approx 90PPI is a more typical resolution. If you had a 90PPI screen you'd have a problem with Verdana @ 100%. SignatureSpartanicus > Your screen resolution causes you to see things differently than most > people, approx 90PPI is a more typical resolution. If you had a 90PPI > screen you'd have a problem with Verdana @ 100%. How can such a statement be valid without knowing display size, screen resolution, and visual acuity? Signature"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you." Matthew 7:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ >> Your screen resolution causes you to see things differently than most >> people, approx 90PPI is a more typical resolution. If you had a 90PPI >> screen you'd have a problem with Verdana @ 100%. > >How can such a statement be valid without knowing display size, screen >resolution, and visual acuity? Display size is irrelevant, screen resolution is specified and visual acuity of the user is a constant for both situations. It's reasonable to assume that a user to whom Verdana sized @ 100% looks good at a display resolution of 120PPI will find it to large when it's 33% bigger. SignatureSpartanicus > >> Your screen resolution causes you to see things differently than most > >> people, approx 90PPI is a more typical resolution. If you had a 90PPI > >> screen you'd have a problem with Verdana @ 100%. My problems with verdana are the same regardless whether my DPI is 72 or 192: 1-among commonly available fonts it's at the extreme upper end of the physical size range, resulting in any substitute being smaller when verdana is not available; 2-when smaller than default is specified by the author, who thinks he is compensating for its large size in so reducing, guests whose default is already verdana are guaranteed to see smaller than their chosen default. > >How can such a statement be valid without knowing display size, screen > >resolution, and visual acuity? > Display size is irrelevant, Display size is never irrelevant. Bigger displays make everything bigger. A bigger display can easily make the difference between just right and too big, or too small and just right, or usable and unusable. > screen resolution is specified and visual > acuity of the user is a constant for both situations. > It's reasonable to assume that a user to whom Verdana sized @ 100% looks > good at a display resolution of 120PPI will find it to large when it's > 33% bigger. Oh, but "reasonable" is not a good assumption. 33% bigger can in no reasonable way be assumed to be "too" big just because 100% is "good". It is typical among members of this and other web design groups to think of size as the "size" specified in a stylesheet, such as 'font-size: 70%'. In fact, 70% is just a label that misleads most into thinking it is a real size when in fact the size we see on a screen display is only seen at all because it has two dimensions, height AND width. 70% applies to both height and width, and the true size is a factor of both height and width, area, giving a real size when that rule is applied of 49%: http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/area70.html Signature"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you." Matthew 7:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ Creative snipping & rearranging deleted (sorry, it didn't fool me). >> >How can such a statement be valid without knowing display size, screen >> >resolution, and visual acuity? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Display size is never irrelevant. Bigger displays make everything >bigger. Nope, you haven't understood the difference between resolution and screen size. More creative twisting of the discussion deleted. SignatureSpartanicus > >> Display size is irrelevant, > >Display size is never irrelevant. Bigger displays make everything > >bigger. > Nope, you haven't understood the difference between resolution and > screen size. No one knows better than an old man like me who can hardly see any more the relationship between resolution and display size. When I want bigger text on a puter display, I do one or more of several things (in order of ease): 1-use zoom 2-sit closer to the display 3-set a minimum font size 4-disallow pages to shrink text 5-use a BIGGER DISPLAY **************** 6-DECREASE RESOLUTION (e.g. drop back from 1600x1200 to 1280x960) **************** 7-lower DPI (10pt @ 120 DPI is bigger than 10pt @ 96 DPI) 8-add a user stylesheet It can work the same for everyone. Signature"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you." Matthew 7:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ >> >> Display size is irrelevant, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >5-use a BIGGER DISPLAY **************** >6-DECREASE RESOLUTION (e.g. drop back from 1600x1200 to 1280x960) You are making a common mistake, 1600x1200 and 1280x960 are values for the *screen area* configuration setting. *Resolution* is an entirely different property which is expressed in PPI. For flat panel displays the resolution in the panel's native screen area size is straight forward. For CRT monitors the *maximum* attainable resolution is determined by the granularity of the mask inside the CRT and the phosphor dots, the actual resolution may be less than that depending on the screen area setting. SignatureSpartanicus > >No one knows better than an old man like me who can hardly see any more > >the relationship between resolution and display size. When I want bigger > >text on a puter display, I do one or more of several things (in order of > >ease): > >1-use zoom > >2-sit closer to the display > >3-set a minimum font size > >4-disallow pages to shrink text > >5-use a BIGGER DISPLAY **************** > >6-DECREASE RESOLUTION (e.g. drop back from 1600x1200 to 1280x960) > You are making a common mistake, 1600x1200 and 1280x960 are values for > the *screen area* configuration setting. Yes, this is the same configurable "mistake" used by such operating system and desktop manager providers as M$ and KDE, which is the only resolution relevant to over 99.99999% of users of personal computers. When I run 1600X1200, I cannot see the roughness of the edges of a 26px letter because the pixels are too tiny and too tightly packed together. When a 13px letter is displayed without any artificial means of smoothing the edges on 800x600, the edges are very rough. http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/images/FontSizeEquiv1600x1200.png This is a manifestation of the apparent resolution, the relevant resolution, the one most people care about. Signature"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you." Matthew 7:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > No one knows better than an old man like me who can hardly see any more > the relationship between resolution and display size. Obviously, you don't know. Resolution is about how many dots or pixels there are per inch. That can be exactly same, and often is, on 17" and 21". > When I want bigger > text on a puter display, I do one or more of several things (in order of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 6-DECREASE RESOLUTION (e.g. drop back from 1600x1200 to 1280x960) > 7-lower DPI (10pt @ 120 DPI is bigger than 10pt @ 96 DPI) This quite handily proofs that you don't know what resolution means. 10pt is same size on 120dpi and 96dpi. What you are doing, is setting your display, and you seem to be doing it irrelated to real resolution. Not bad approach, but won't help too much when fonts are specified in different unit, and there is drawback of not being able to do pt stuff right. > 8-add a user stylesheet > > It can work the same for everyone. What you miss is that large part of people only know, or can use #2. SignatureLauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts> Utrecht, NL. >>Use Verdana, set a font-size that makes Verdana look right to you. Now >>delete Verdana from your system (or just comment it out in your [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > higher echelons of the corporate world, the type of people that can make > or break the success of a web site. your test sounds very interesting, unfortunatly i dont have a 150dpi laptop at hand. maybe you could make some convincing screenshots of your test results. looking forward to be convninced :) gr martin > your test sounds very interesting, unfortunatly i dont have a 150dpi > laptop at hand. maybe you could make some convincing screenshots of > your test results. This is a wind-up, isn't it? Or don't you see the illogicality of your suggestion? Try viewing your own display at double the normal viewing distance - that might give you *some* idea how it would look at 150dpi. Just taking a 150dpi screenshot, and viewing it at your usual 72dpi or whatever it is that you've got, doesn't prove much at all. >your test sounds very interesting, unfortunatly i dont have a 150dpi >laptop at hand. maybe you could make some convincing screenshots of your >test results. A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical to a native 90PPI display :) SignatureSpartanicus >>your test sounds very interesting, unfortunatly i dont have a 150dpi >>laptop at hand. maybe you could make some convincing screenshots of your >>test results. > > A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical > to a native 90PPI display :) ic .. so i misunderstood some units, doesnt make screenshots of these test less interesting. >> A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical >> to a native 90PPI display :) > >ic .. so i misunderstood some units, doesnt make screenshots of these >test less interesting. You clearly are not understanding the issue. SignatureSpartanicus >>>A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical >>>to a native 90PPI display :) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You clearly are not understanding the issue. could be, if not, you can ignore my reply. still i would be interested to 'see' an example of your test. >>>>A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical >>>>to a native 90PPI display :) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >could be, if not, you can ignore my reply. >still i would be interested to 'see' an example of your test. A screen shot of what it looks like on a high resolution screen viewed on a lower resolution screen would magnify the result, thereby making the exercise pointless. SignatureSpartanicus >>>>>A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical >>>>>to a native 90PPI display :) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > on a lower resolution screen would magnify the result, thereby making > the exercise pointless. use a camera >>>>>A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical >>>>>to a native 90PPI display :) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > on a lower resolution screen would magnify the result, thereby making > the exercise pointless. a photograph of your screen would maybe do the job maybe also place a ruler before your screen, so we can see what the actual size was. > could be, if not, you can ignore my reply. > still i would be interested to 'see' an example of your test. Using only a slight bit of imagination you could understand the problem by looking at http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/allreschooser.html and http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/images/FontSizeEquiv1600x1200.png The only way to fully understand is to duplicate the described configuration. Signature"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you." Matthew 7:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ >>could be, if not, you can ignore my reply. >>still i would be interested to 'see' an example of your test. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The only way to fully understand is to duplicate the described > configuration. :) > Some other tests: You do not need a test for this it is a valid logical argument. a is smaller than b. Reduce the size of both a and b by an equal percentage. a is still smaller than b. There is no one who contests this here. >You do not need a test for this it is a valid logical argument. a is >smaller than b. Reduce the size of both a and b by an equal percentage. >a is still smaller than b. But by a factor of 2. >There is no one who contests this here. You seem to argue that it's ok to loose a percentage of visitors for the sake of esthetics. The beauty of the web is that the next service or shop is only a few clicks away. Anyone using a web site to generate revenue who favours their aesthetic preference over turnover is a fool. Anyone using a website to provide information that is more or less unique like governmental sites often has an obligation to make it accessible to the widest possible audience. SignatureSpartanicus >>You do not need a test for this it is a valid logical argument. a is >>smaller than b. Reduce the size of both a and b by an equal percentage. >>a is still smaller than b. > > But by a factor of 2. Huh? a is 20% smaller than b. Both a and b is reduced 50%. a is still 20% smaller than b. Where does the factor of 2 come in? >>There is no one who contests this here. > > You seem to argue that it's ok to loose a percentage of visitors for the > sake of esthetics. The beauty of the web is that the next service or > shop is only a few clicks away. Anyone using a web site to generate > revenue who favours their aesthetic preference over turnover is a fool. Your arguments are getting sloppy. The whole point of the compromise is to please MOST of the visitors instead of catering to the minority. Redo your logic. > Anyone using a website to provide information that is more or less > unique like governmental sites often has an obligation to make it > accessible to the widest possible audience. I agree, and therefore such pages should be as readable as possible for all potential visitors including options for printable pages. They should be audio renderable as well as serve the information to deaf people. A very nice exception to the rule. >>>You do not need a test for this it is a valid logical argument. a is >>>smaller than b. Reduce the size of both a and b by an equal percentage. >>>a is still smaller than b. >> >> But by a factor of 2. >Huh? a is 20% smaller than b. Both a and b is reduced 50%. a is still >20% smaller than b. Where does the factor of 2 come in? Client reduced + Author reduced = 2 * reduced. >>>There is no one who contests this here. >> >> You seem to argue that it's ok to loose a percentage of visitors for the >> sake of esthetics. The beauty of the web is that the next service or >> shop is only a few clicks away. Anyone using a web site to generate >> revenue who favours their aesthetic preference over turnover is a fool. >Your arguments are getting sloppy. The whole point of the compromise is >to please MOST of the visitors instead of catering to the minority. Redo >your logic. I summed up your position accurately, you are a fool. SignatureSpartanicus > Your arguments are getting sloppy. The whole point of the compromise is > to please MOST of the visitors instead of catering to the minority. Redo > your logic. The whole point is actually to meet the needs of your client. Shutting the door on potential customers does not meet the needs of your client. After all, minorities are potential customers too. >>I am a bit curious about this. >>The graphic design people I work with say it is their preferred font for >>web pages. The reason being that it is "kinder" to the eye both in terms >>of shape and size. > What size are they suggesting it be used at? If Verdana at the browser > default size is the look they are after then go for it. Varies wildly in relation to the overall design. > If they're suggesting that it be used at a smaller font size then they > are in fact agreeing with... >>The HTML "hardcore elititst" profess that it is a useless font because >>it is too big compared to other fonts. Not completely, the design of the font itself is said to promote readability. This is actually a kind of science and has to do with the actual shaping of the letters, text flow and how the eye captures it. The Verdana is best for the screen, Times is best on paper (or so the "experts" say). >>Personally I do not care one way or the other, but I generally trust >>graphic designers more than programmers and rules lawyers when it comes >>to pure design. > Ah but who do you trust on matters of accessibility and usability? That is a matter of requirement specifications, but I do advocate a general attitude towards making web pages accessible. In some cases it comes down to compromise. > According to http://www.visibone.com/font/FontResults.html 98% of > users have Verdana installed. Interresting statistics, thx! :) I am still not convinced Verdana is a bad font. >Not completely, the design of the font itself is said to promote >readability. Yes. Verdana was designed to be readable at small font sizes. Do you see how this leads to a catch 22? Steve Signature"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/> >>Not completely, the design of the font itself is said to promote >>readability. > Yes. Verdana was designed to be readable at small font sizes. Do you > see how this leads to a catch 22? It leads to a discussuion of wether the user or the designer should control which font should be used. This is nowhere near a catch 22 unless the best font is the one that noone can use. The only statistics I have seen is that 2% of users do not have it installed. Give or take 2% it does not make a huge difference unless you have a very specific target group, which in turn would be the exception to the rule ... Still not convinced :) > It leads to a discussuion of wether the user or the designer should > control which font should be used. This is nowhere near a catch 22 > unless the best font is the one that noone can use. You're ignoring a fundamental fact about the web -- "the designer" *can* *not* control anything. Once the page content is handed off to a user, his software can do anything it wants to with it. Everything that the designer specifies is, at best, a suggestion. That's the way that the web works, at a very basic technical level. There's nothing that you can do about it -- if you don't like it, your only choice is to not author web pages. Dave >>> Not completely, the design of the font itself is said to promote >>> readability. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Still not convinced :) me neither... verdana is always my font of choice, I have used it for years in many different settings/sizes and test everything on many diff browsers, I've never seen my stuff to be unreadable in any size.. occasionally I come across fonts that are too small to read in any font face, but that's b/c designer didn't know what they were doing, not b/c of verdana's fault.. ;)... arial totally SUCKS as a font.. it's ugly and much less readable... at small sizes it doesn't even show the bold.. my two cents......... >arial totally SUCKS as a font.. it's ugly >and much less readable... at small sizes it doesn't even show the bold.. Does anyone have links to various actual tests of the different fonts, rather then the perpetual "I like this font, and hate this one" that's now occuring? A quick Google search finds the interesting and IMO more information such as: http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/41/onlinetext.htm http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3S/font.htm > >arial totally SUCKS as a font.. it's ugly > >and much less readable... at small sizes it doesn't even show the bold.. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/41/onlinetext.htm - doesn't make comparison between subjectively similar sized sans and serif. Since difference is quite big, and you can actually use difference as serifs don't need as big line-height, it would make sence to compare 100% times to 80% verdana and 85% Arial. > http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm - similar, about same problems... > http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3S/font.htm These are actually almost same test 3 times. All having very limited use in WWW terms, as they don't really tell us much. All repeatable in lab, but what about hoe/office? It says A Pentium II based PC computer, with a 60 Hz, 96dpi 17" monitor with a resolution setting of 1024 x 768 pixels - why 60Hz, it is too low - might skew the thing. - 96ppi + 17" + 1024 * 768 don't add up. So actual ppi is smaller, which propably has effect. IIRC, I had read all these. SignatureLauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts> Utrecht, NL. > These are actually almost same test 3 times. All having very limited use > in WWW terms, as they don't really tell us much. All repeatable in lab, > but what about hoe/office? > It says > A Pentium II based PC computer, with a 60 Hz, 96dpi 17" monitor with a > resolution setting of 1024 x 768 pixels > - why 60Hz, it is too low - might skew the thing. I agree totally, this choice is terrible. Doesn't specify interlaced or non-interlaced, does it??? > - 96ppi + 17" + 1024 * 768 don't add up. So actual ppi is smaller, which If your do any testing it should NOT be on an analog display. > propably has effect. Right, more than probably I expect. > IIRC, I had read all these. This whole area, surely, must have been investigated more thoroughly. I think it may have been done many times and the companies have kept their findings for internal use only... ;-) Thank you... Rich > If your do any testing it should NOT be on an analog display. It you're to do any meaningful testing, it needs to be across the spectrum of displays that your readers are using. >>If your do any testing it should NOT be on an analog display. > It you're to do any meaningful testing, it needs to be across the > spectrum of displays that your readers are using. I should have said... when the results are available for digital display tests then the analog tests can begin. In effect you will then be in a poisition to investigate the effect of the analog skewing has on electronic readers. But NO WAY you should set out in the fudged analog world first... (unless you're a glutton for punishment). Thank you... Rich >> These are actually almost same test 3 times. All having very limited use >> in WWW terms, as they don't really tell us much. All repeatable in lab, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >think it may have been done many times and the companies have kept their >findings for internal use only... ;-) Hence my hope that perhaps someone out there had references to other such studies they could share :) I agree that the ones I posted aren't perfect. For example, their sample is hardly representative of the general population, or even the current web population. However, as that may be, they are about the only ones I have found online which used test subjects to see what effects some different font selections have. But at least a number of posters in this thread have given their reasons for some of there viewpoints, which is better then the folks who state what fonts are good selections, and which are bad selections, but with no rational as to why they believe that is so. >>>These are actually almost same test 3 times. All having very limited use >>>in WWW terms, as they don't really tell us much. All repeatable in lab, >>>but what about hoe/office? >>This whole area, surely, must have been investigated more thoroughly. I >>think it may have been done many times and the companies have kept their >>findings for internal use only... ;-) > Hence my hope that perhaps someone out there had references to other such > studies they could share :) I agree that the ones I posted aren't perfect. > For example, their sample is hardly representative of the general population, > or even the current web population. I'm not so sure you need to be too concerned about the web population. I believe you may do better looking for testing with respect to eReader design. These would, more than likely, try to home in on the ideal display, fonts, line spacing, line width, margins spacing and such. Then with those reults press on to figure out the optimum web presentation to achieve those goals. I designed my web site by closely monitoring Microsoft Reader and an article called "The Magic of Reading". > However, as that may be, they are about the only ones I have found online > which used test subjects to see what effects some different font selections > have. I looked at those quite a while ago and dismissed them as someone's homework. ;-) > But at least a number of posters in this thread have given their reasons for > some of there viewpoints, which is better then the folks who state what > fonts are good selections, and which are bad selections, but with no rational > as to why they believe that is so. I think there is some rational thought to some of it. I cringe with some of the comparisons that were made. Not the findings but the fact the comparison was made... you know... apples and oranges... ;-) Thank you... Rich > If your do any testing it should NOT be on an analog display. What rot! It's still the most prolific form of VDU. You should NOT ignore it. SignatureIf you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to. This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself. > SeaPlusPlus <SeaPlusPlus@hotmail.com> posted: >>If your do any testing it should NOT be on an analog display. > What rot! It's still the most prolific form of VDU. You should NOT ignore > it. The rot is in the monitors... ;-) We're not talking about testing monitors here. I mean what we're trying to test out is which are the most readable least objectionable fonts. Not monitors so if you use analog monitors they inject too much of themselves into to look of the fonts. Focus is all over the place on them. Then there's bleeding and misalignment... whatever... If you want to test monitors go ahead... but I want to test fonts and that should be done on LCD's. After you attain believable data using good equipment and good fonts under various situations then you can start looking at whether your findings still hold up under less than optimum conditions (analog monitors). Thank you... Rich SeaPlusPlus <SeaPlusPlus@hotmail.com> posted: >>> If your do any testing it should NOT be on an analog display. Tim wrote: >> What rot! It's still the most prolific form of VDU. You should NOT ignore >> it. SeaPlusPlus <SeaPlusPlus@hotmail.com> posted: > The rot is in the monitors... ;-) > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > under various situations then you can start looking at whether your > findings still hold up under less than optimum conditions (analog monitors). At which point to you believe that your LCD monitor isn't introducting defects of its own? Various fashions of the anti-aliasing techniques (e.g. clear type) are used on LCD displays which distort the appearance in manner peculiar to the monitor in question. Turn that off and you *might* just have an undistorted rendition of the content, but hardly anybody uses their monitor in that conditition (it's really enhances the effect like you're looking at a flourescent tube behind flyscreen wire). The in-built ability for a CRT to smoothly display fonts that are drawning using only a few pixels makes it superior to an LCD in a lot of cases. The seriously low dot count (real pixels) on an LCD puts it at a lower resolution than most CRTs. A CRT can easily spread a pixel across several phosphor dots without introducing the same types of aliasing errors that LCD can (and I'm not talking about LCDs running at the wrong resolution, their dot clock and the VDU card's dot clock are asynchronous and can only be vaguely aligned even at the right scan rate and resolution). (I'll make the point that there's not a lot of difference between analogue and digital LCDs, and that the main difference between analogue and digital devices is CRTs versus LCDs.) An LCD screen has poorer resolution than my old dot matrix printer, and all the display devices have their own characteristics. You really cannot use an LCD (digital or analogue) as the example of what's the best way to render something. What might look best on an LCD is no indication of what might look best on a CRT, as well. SignatureIf you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to. This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself. > SeaPlusPlus posted: >>>>If your do any testing it should NOT be on an analog display. > Tim wrote: >>>What rot! It's still the most prolific form of VDU. You should NOT ignore >>>it. > SeaPlusPlus <SeaPlusPlus@hotmail.com> posted: >>The rot is in the monitors... ;-) >>We're not talking about testing monitors here. >>I mean what we're trying to test out is which are the most readable >>least objectionable fonts. Not monitors so if you use analog monitors >>they inject too much of themselves into to look of the fonts. Focus is >>all over the place on them. Then there's bleeding and misalignment... >>whatever... >>If you want to test monitors go ahead... but I want to test fonts and >>that should be done on LCD's. >>After you attain believable data using good equipment and good fonts >>under various situations then you can start looking at whether your >>findings still hold up under less than optimum conditions (analog monitors). > At which point to you believe that your LCD monitor isn't introducting > defects of its own? > Various fashions of the anti-aliasing techniques (e.g. clear type) are used > on LCD displays which distort the appearance in manner peculiar to the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to smoothly display fonts that are drawning using only a few pixels makes > it superior to an LCD in a lot of cases. > The seriously low dot count (real pixels) on an LCD puts it at a lower > resolution than most CRTs. A CRT can easily spread a pixel across several > phosphor dots without introducing the same types of aliasing errors that > LCD can (and I'm not talking about LCDs running at the wrong resolution, > their dot clock and the VDU card's dot clock are asynchronous and can only > be vaguely aligned even at the right scan rate and resolution). > (I'll make the point that there's not a lot of difference between analogue > and digital LCDs, and that the main difference between analogue and digital > devices is CRTs versus LCDs.) > An LCD screen has poorer resolution than my old dot matrix printer, and all > the display devices have their own characteristics. You really cannot use > an LCD (digital or analogue) as the example of what's the best way to > render something. What might look best on an LCD is no indication of what > might look best on a CRT, as well. All well and good... everything has problems and yes somethings are better than others yada yada yada... I agree... but the question out there to you is... What is your plan to test the relative readablity of different fonts under various conditions? (Hint: that's a question.) ;-) Dot matrix printers print more dots an inch than the human eye can resolve anyway so they can be overkill. Here is a snippet of a post by Bill Hill who worked on developing ClearType at Microsoft... ___________________________________ The vernier acuity of the fovea - the tiny area in the human retina we use for high resolution pattern recognition (reading being one example) - is about 600dpi. ClearType's a hardware resolution multiplier. We don't get a 3x improvement, but with 200dpi and ClearType, you're so far up the curve of Perceived Resolution Improvement v. hardware cost you're in the Law of Diminishing Returns when you throw more reoslution at it. I'm typing this in English ( well, Scottish), on a 147dpi Dell Inspiron 8500 laptop with ClearType, and it's beautiful. But if I was typing in a very small font in, say, Japanese I might want more. I think the sweet spot lies somewhere between 140 and 200. But 200 dpi technology is already out there and will become commercially viable over the next five years. Why stop at 147, when at 200, you're done for all languages and have a truly global solution? ___________________________________ Now if I were going to conduct experiments on font readability I would start with a display in that range with ClearType on and conduct the tests both before and after the users have tuned ClearType to their satisfaction. Yes, Tim, I would also (later) consider all the options for testing under less than optimum conditions -- using all manner of displays to see how or even if the font preferences differ. Thank you... Rich "Tim" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets: >SeaPlusPlus <SeaPlusPlus@hotmail.com> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> What rot! It's still the most prolific form of VDU. You should NOT ignore >>> it. Hardly "prolific". I have yet to see any computer monitor of ny type that can reproduce itself. :-) Perhaps you meant "prevalent"? SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ > > SeaPlusPlus <SeaPlusPlus@hotmail.com> posted: > If you want to test monitors go ahead... but I want to test fonts and > that should be done on LCD's. If you want to test fonts on web, you need to use all kinds of monitors and their settings. My point was to not limit the test to one. SignatureLauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts> Utrecht, NL. >>If you want to test monitors go ahead... but I want to test fonts and >>that should be done on LCD's. > If you want to test fonts on web, you need to use all kinds of monitors > and their settings. My point was to not limit the test to one. Correct, Lauri, it's a trick... there's two of them... Thank you... Rich > A quick Google search finds the interesting and IMO more information such as: > > http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/41/onlinetext.htm > http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm > http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3S/font.htm Hmmm. Given a choice of only 3 serif and 3 sans-serif fonts (Comic Sans isn't even a consideration, IMO), the results aren't that surprising. If your only sans-serif choices are Verdana, Arial and Tahoma, which do you prefer? But, if you had your choice of any font at all, what would it be? SignatureReply email address is a bottomless spam bucket. Please reply to the group so everyone can share. >>A quick Google search finds the interesting and IMO more information such as: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you prefer? But, if you had your choice of any font at all, what would > it be? I seem to detect something of a general consensus that striving for accessability is a priority among the debatants. If that is the case one must strive to produce a website that looks good with the most common fonts installed on systems, namely the ones used in the test. Therefore I am of the opinion that these test results are very applicable in homes and offices all around the latin-letters-using world. If leaving font choice to the user is not an option one would be wise to take these conclusions under serious consideration. in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?ISO-8859- 1?Q?St=E5le_S=E6b=F8e?= wrote: > I seem to detect something of a general consensus that striving for > accessability is a priority among the debatants. If that is the case one > must strive to produce a website that looks good with the most common > fonts installed on systems, namely the ones used in the test. I agree that limited number of fonts is not problem. The last one with couple obscure fonts wont have any meaning. To get idea what kind of wont is best, much bigger sample should be used, and since that would make results unablicable to WWW... > Therefore I am of the opinion that these test results are very > applicable in homes and offices all around the latin-letters-using > world. If leaving font choice to the user is not an option That is not possible. Font choise is always in users hand, so ignoring it just creates additional problems. > one would be wise to take these conclusions under serious consideration. Conclusions are? That bigger font is easier to read? And that there is dislike towards TNR, which is not based on readability? The results might be totally different, if using normal monitor, with 85Hz and 96ppi. The results might be totally different, if actually comparing similarly sized fonts. (in terms of how much nicely laid out text takes, instead nominal font size) SignatureLauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts> Utrecht, NL. "Ståle Sæbøe" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets: >I seem to detect something of a general consensus that striving for >accessibility is a priority among the debatants. Perhaps I read too much into what you say, but I sense that you don?t agree with that goal. I hope I?m wrong, and that you _do_ agree the purpose of putting up any Web page is to communicate. >If that is the case one >must strive to produce a website that looks good with the most common >fonts installed on systems, namely the ones used in the test. Wrong! One must strike for a Web site that makes its content readable regardless what font the VISITOR has selected. Why must you keep beating your head against a wall? The Web is not desktop publishing. Trying to do the impossible only wastes your time, and the attempt usually makes things worse. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ > "Ståle Sæbøe" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > desktop publishing. Trying to do the impossible only wastes your > time, and the attempt usually makes things worse. In one paragraph you claim that the goal must be to make websites intelligeble regardless of the visitors font choice and in the next you express frustration that I am trying to do the impossible, even if I never said what I was really trying to do. And even in the same paragraph you see me banging my head against a wall? What kind of argumentation is that? Tell you what. Give me a couple of examples of webpages that will look ok REGARDLESS of my selected font, and maybe you will have made some kind of point in spite of your ramblings. > Given a choice of only 3 serif and 3 sans-serif fonts (Comic Sans isn't > even a consideration, IMO), the results aren't that surprising. > If your only sans-serif choices are Verdana, Arial and Tahoma, which do > you prefer? But, if you had your choice of any font at all, what would > it be? Verdana IS the best font hands down. But it is not a good choice when it is time-sharing (;-0) with others you aren't sure of... I my opinion this is the best compromize for the best typography attainable on the web at this time... Serif font styled as (font: medium Georgia, serif;) for display (font: 10.5pt normal "Times New Roman", serif;) for print Monospace font styled as (font: medium "Courier New", monospace;) for display (font: 10.5pt "Courier New", monospace;) for print Sans-serif font styled as (font: medium "Lucida Sans Unicode", sans-serif;) for display (font: 10.5pt "Lucida Sans Unicode", sans-serif;) for print Thank you... Rich > Verdana IS the best font hands down. That's subjective. I don't happen to agree with you. > I my opinion this is the best compromize for the best typography > attainable on the web at this time... > > (font: medium Georgia, serif;) for display Not according to those studies somebody posted. IIRC Georgia got good marks for "personality" but not much else, though I do like it myself. SignatureReply email address is a bottomless spam bucket. Please reply to the group so everyone can share. >>Verdana IS the best font hands down. > > That's subjective. I don't happen to agree with you. I was answering the first question given the choice of the three. Verdana, Arial and Tahoma which do you prefer... but you clipped that out... So which of the three do you like better? >>I my opinion this is the best compromize for the best typography >>attainable on the web at this time... >> >>(font: medium Georgia, serif;) for display > Not according to those studies somebody posted. IIRC Georgia got good > marks for "personality" but not much else, though I do like it myself. I am already on record as ignoring those 'studies' but in choosing Georgia I have considered other features of the font such as the repertoire and future availability. Those studies... by the way... do NOT mention the word typography!!! :-0 Thank you... Rich "SeaPlusPlus" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets: >Verdana IS the best font hands down. Apparently you believe that if you repeat that enough times it will become true. You remind me of a Christian Scientist with appendicitis. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ >>Verdana IS the best font hands down. > Apparently you believe that if you repeat that enough times it will > become true. > You remind me of a Christian Scientist with appendicitis. You are the second one to quote it out of context... the question was -- wait I'll get it for you-- "If your only sans-serif choices are Verdana, Arial and Tahoma, which do you prefer?" Which one would you choose? Also, if you read further down in the post... I listed the suggestions I use in my web pages and, lo, Verdana doesn't show up there at all... hmmmm... OBTW,I'm NO Christian Scientist either... ;-) (that's for sure) Thank you... Rich >>>The HTML "hardcore elititst" profess that it is a useless font because >>>it is too big compared to other fonts. >Not completely, the design of the font itself is said to promote >readability. This is actually a kind of science and has to do with the >actual shaping of the letters, text flow and how the eye captures it. >The Verdana is best for the screen, Times is best on paper (or so the >"experts" say). The proper scientific tests that have been conducted do not confirm a better legibility for Verdana, they do confirm that users have a certain preference for Verdana on esthetic grounds. SignatureSpartanicus >> According to http://www.visibone.com/font/FontResults.html 98% of >> users have Verdana installed. > >Interresting statistics, thx! :) But what's their exact methodology for computing those numbers? A quick look at the site didn't find any information on the subject, and the quality of the results is critically dependent on it. I've no doubt that the real percentage is high (probably including just about every Windows system that exists), but without further information I'd take the 98% value with a large grain of salt. > I am still not convinced Verdana is a bad font. You're misstating the issue -- it's not whether Verdana is a bad font but whether Verdana is suitable for the author to specify as the default font for a web page. Given that Verdana is not universally available and that its visual properties are sufficiently different from those of most other fonts that the page is likely to be unreadable if Verdana is not available, it seems pretty clear to me that (except in special cases) Verdana as an author-specified default is a bad choice. Dave >> Ah but who do you trust on matters of accessibility and usability? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I am still not convinced Verdana is a bad font. pls compare: http://www.francesdelrio.com/fonts.html to me personally at least, verdana is a much more readable font, esp at the small sizes (pls note 11px and 10px... arial at 10px doesn't even show the bold..) Frances > pls compare: > http://www.francesdelrio.com/fonts.html *lol* I was confused first, because I did not see any change in font size. Until I realised this was due to me having Opera configured to enforce a minimum font size of 14 px :-) > > pls compare: > > http://www.francesdelrio.com/fonts.html > > *lol* I was confused first, because I did not see any change in font > size. Until I realised this was due to me having Opera configured to > enforce a minimum font size of 14 px :-) I was confused at first as well, as but it was because my stylesheet made both columns Arial.... SignatureLauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts> Utrecht, NL. > pls compare: > http://www.francesdelrio.com/fonts.html > > to me personally at least, verdana is a much more readable font, esp at > the small sizes Of course it is, if you compare it to nominally same size other fonts. That is the core of the problem. If you compare fonts that take similar space, the the difference is not at all clear, and there is even some evidence that even TNR is better: http://dsv.su.se/jpalme/internet-course/font-report.html > (pls note 11px and 10px... arial at 10px doesn't even > show the bold..) That is because that size is not allowed in Arial Bold.. most likely because it would cause unreadable text. I remade your test using 1px bigger values for Arial: http://www.student.oulu.fi/~laurirai/www/test/fonts.html Notice that now all texts take about same space in screen, unlike in your orginal test. Which you think are easier to read now? I think I can read Arial better Lets add some line height, say 1.5 http://www.student.oulu.fi/~laurirai/www/test/fonts.html#lh15 This makes both easier to read. Difference is bigger as well, this time Arial seems to be far more readable This test doesn't prove anything, as there is too much subjectivity, but maybe it illustrates why comparing nominally same sized fonts is not good idea. SignatureLauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts> Utrecht, NL. > > I am still not convinced Verdana is a bad font. You've not been paying proper attention. *For its stated purpose*, Verdana is a rather good font: but it's a very poor mixer in company. And that's why we're counselling against including it in the fonts selection for a web page. See http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html > pls compare: > http://www.francesdelrio.com/fonts.html I don't think you've understood the problem either. > to me personally at least, verdana is a much more readable font, esp > at the small sizes (pls note 11px and 10px... Yes, that's exactly the problem. You're going to specify it too small, just like all the other deezyners. > arial at 10px doesn't even show the bold..) And what were you going to use as your fallback font for users who hadn't got Verdana, eh? "Hence or otherwise deduce..." > You've not been paying proper attention. *For its stated purpose*, > Verdana is a rather good font: but it's a very poor mixer in company. > And that's why we're counselling against including it in the fonts > selection for a web page. Actually, the reason behind the counselling has been based on Verdana with font-size property set to 85% or lower for body text. A point to which I have agreed several times now. I have so far received positive feedback on my pages where I use Verdana for body text at 100% size. A lot of people do not override the fonts served. Many of them will see TNR if I do not specify another font, and the feedback on TNR is that it sucks ... My pages also render nicely with overridden fonts on the users part due to me not touching the font size. All in all I still think Verdana is the best choice. in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?ISO-8859- 1?Q?St=E5le_S=E6b=F8e?= wrote: > > You've not been paying proper attention. *For its stated purpose*, > > Verdana is a rather good font: but it's a very poor mixer in company. > > And that's why we're counselling against including it in the fonts > > selection for a web page. > Actually, the reason behind the counselling has been based on Verdana > with font-size property set to 85% or lower for body text. A point to > which I have agreed several times now. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message