 |
 | 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 / July 2006What fonts are equivalent on different platforms?
I'm trying to design my style sheets such that my pages have similar-looking fonts different platforms (Linux, Mac, Adobe, X-Windows, MS Windows, etc). The problem is, a font on one platform might be the same as a font on another platform, but with different names. I'd like to be able to specify the font names that are "most equivalent." For example, "Lucida Console" is a very attractive and readable monospaced font available in Windows. I now use it instead of Courier for everything requiring monospaced text. I *think* that the equivalent Mac font is "Monaco" -- but I'm not sure. Another example: Arial in Windows looks like Helvetica on the Mac. There are variants such as Helv and Univers that also look the same. But what about other popular Windows fonts like Trebuchet MS and Verdana? Do they have near-identical relatives on other platforms? Does anyone know of a resource that shows me what different fonts look like on different platforms? I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html but the page shows them all rendered as Windows fonts. For example, see Helvetica next to both Arial and Trebuchet; Helvetica looks like either Arial or Trebuchet, but it can't be both. Even the Mac screenshots look wrong; the all look like Windows fonts. -Alex > Does anyone know of a resource that shows me what different fonts > look like on different platforms? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > either Arial or Trebuchet, but it can't be both. Even the Mac > screenshots look wrong; the all look like Windows fonts. Speaking as a Mac user, I can tell you that page is quite accurate. I have in fact bookmarked it for future reference. Microsoft's "core fonts for the web" are also freely available. They're included with most modern Linux distros, and also downloadable here: <http://sourceforge.net/projects/font-tool> If memory serves, that's Andale, Arial, MS Comic Sans, Georgia, Impact, Times New Roman, Trebuchet, Verdana, and WebDings. Finally, when you're writing your CSS, be sure to include a list of alternatives, with the last one being a generic such as "sans-serif". sherm--  SignatureWeb Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net >> I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html >> but the page shows them all rendered as Windows fonts. For example, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Speaking as a Mac user, I can tell you that page is quite accurate. I >have in fact bookmarked it for future reference. That's good to know, thanks. The innacuracy that glares out at me is with Helvetica, which apppears in different places, and looks different in each place. >Finally, when you're writing your CSS, be sure to include a list of >alternatives, with the last one being a generic such as "sans-serif". Yes, I do that already. Initially I was using all generic font names in my pages, but then I decided I liked how Trebuchet MS made my pages look, and Lucida Console is such a nicer font than Courier, that I want to be sure that I have a consistent look across platforms. -Alex >>> I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html >>> but the page shows them all rendered as Windows fonts. For example, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > with Helvetica, which apppears in different places, and looks different > in each place. My eyes must be getting old - I can't see much of a difference. Maybe the second one is a tiny bit bigger. sherm-- SignatureWeb Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net >>>> I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html >> The innacuracy that glares out at me is with Helvetica, which >> apppears in different places, and looks different in each place. > >My eyes must be getting old - I can't see much of a difference. Maybe the >second one is a tiny bit bigger. Look at the lowercase L in 'Helvetica' -- both in the Arial and the Trebuchet line. One L is a vertical line whereas the other has a little hook at the bottom. Also compare the sharpness of the point in the 'v'. Two completely different fonts. The 'c' is more open in one of them, and the 'a' has a smaller loop. That's why I thought it was inaccurate. Helvetica is NOT being displayed in at least one instance. I think the second Helvetica is actually Trebuchet MS. -A >>>>> I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > it was inaccurate. Helvetica is NOT being displayed in at least one > instance. I think the second Helvetica is actually Trebuchet MS. I can see it now. Good eyes! For myself, I'm beginning to wonder about the wisdom of running a 17" CRT at 1280x1024. :-\ sherm-- SignatureWeb Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net >I can see it now. Good eyes! Well, it comes naturally since I began creating custom bitmap fonts over 15 years ago. A long time ago I wrote an Amiga video subtitling program called JACOsub, and designed some nice fonts for it. Ever since then I've been sensitive to the subtle differences in character glyph appearances between font families. >For myself, I'm beginning to wonder about the wisdom of running a 17" CRT >at 1280x1024. :-\ Nah. I do. I always use the max resolution possible. Just turn make sure ClearType is enabled (apparently the Mac has it too) and everything's fine. ClearType was designed for flat-panel displays but it works well on most CRTs also. -A > For myself, I'm beginning to wonder about the wisdom of running a 17" CRT > at 1280x1024. :-\ I recommend you change to 1280x960, at least if your monitor is 4:3 in shape. That way things that are meant to be square will be square (not rectangluar) and circles will be circles (not ellipses). Also, contrary to popular belief, I'm sure CRTs do actually have a native resolution, at least in one direction (some in two directions). Just dig out a magnifying glass and count the number of phosphorus stripe triplets. Alternitivley, measure the visible width of your screen, and divide by the dot pitch. As for cleartype and its equivalents, if you have stripes of phosphorus (aperture grille) then you can probably use this, as the mapping should then be the same as on an LCD. If you don't have stripes, but instead have a kind of honeycomb grid layout (Shadow mask), then sub-pixel rendering systems probably won't work so well, but you can always campain to microsoft/apple/some open source people to get the appropriate adjustments made to the system. > For myself, I'm beginning to wonder about the wisdom of running a 17" CRT > at 1280x1024. :-\ There is little wisdom in that. It is a CRT monitor, therefore it is a 4:3 aspect ratio (unless it's widescreen, which would be worse) and you're running a 5:4 ratio logical pixel resolution. As a result, everything on your screen is squished to be about 7% fatter or 7% shorter than it should be. Try 1280x960. -- Vid the Kid axlq wrote: > You're confused. The fact is, simply, that Arial looks a lot more > like Helvetica than any other sans-serif font not called "Helvetica." Among fonts commonly seen on desktop computers, perhaps. But I've taught myself the difference. I like Helvetica better. Unfortunately, my installation of Firefox 1.0 on Windows 98 insists on substituting Arial for Helvetica despite the fact that I have Helvetica installed on my system and against any attempt at overriding this behavior with my user stylesheet. -- Vid the Kid >> For myself, I'm beginning to wonder about the wisdom of running a 17" CRT >> at 1280x1024. :-\ [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > everything on your screen is squished to be about 7% fatter or 7% > shorter than it should be. I also run a 17" CRT at 1280x1024. I suppose that technically things are a little shorter and fatter than they ought to be, but it's only to a tiny degree, so you get used to it. > Try 1280x960. At 1280x960 I'd miss out on nearly 82000 pixels, so no thanks. SignatureToby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact > Microsoft's "core fonts for the web" are also freely available. They're > included with most modern Linux distros, and also downloadable here: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If memory serves, that's Andale, Arial, MS Comic Sans, Georgia, Impact, > Times New Roman, Trebuchet, Verdana, and WebDings. That doesn't much help, of course, since it's the users, not the page designer, who need to have these fonts, and they're not going to download them just because your CSS calls for them--they won't even *know* that your CSS refers to them. >> Microsoft's "core fonts for the web" are also freely available. They're >> included with most modern Linux distros, and also downloadable here: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That doesn't much help, of course, since it's the users, not the page > designer, who need to have these fonts That's why I pointed out that most (obviously not all) users do have them, even a large number of Linux users. And that's also why I pointed out, in the part of my post that you conveniently snipped for the sake of making a condescending response, the importance of adding a generic "family" name like "sans-serif" at the end of the list. >, and they're not going to > download them just because your CSS calls for them--they won't even > *know* that your CSS refers to them. Why thank you Captain Obvious. Do you have anything *useful* to add, or is this just a pissing contest? sherm-- SignatureWeb Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net >>> Microsoft's "core fonts for the web" are also freely available. They're >>> included with most modern Linux distros, and also downloadable here: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > snipped for the sake of making a condescending response, the importance of > adding a generic "family" name like "sans-serif" at the end of the list. I wasn't being condescending, I didn't snip anything out of convenience, I didn't disagree with anything you said, and I found nearly all of it relevant and useful. All I was doing was pointing out, if not to you then to anyone reading what you wrote who might not have grasped it, that this *one* fact that you mentioned, while useful to those who want the fonts, is incidental to the question of how to get web pages to display as desired in users' browsers. Is there something wrong with trying to clarify something someone else has written if one thinks it will be helpful? >>>> Microsoft's "core fonts for the web" are also freely available. They're >>>> included with most modern Linux distros, and also downloadable here: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > convenience, I didn't disagree with anything you said, and I found > nearly all of it relevant and useful. I'm sorry for overreacting then. > All I was doing was pointing > out, if not to you then to anyone reading what you wrote who might not > have grasped it, that this *one* fact that you mentioned, while useful > to those who want the fonts, is incidental to the question of how to > get web pages to display as desired in users' browsers. My point wasn't so much that they're easy for users to get and install, as it was that they're pre-installed on a huge number of systems. Obviously not every user will have them, but the odds for those fonts being installed are as good as such things are going to get. sherm-- SignatureWeb Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net > Microsoft's "core fonts for the web" are also freely available. Those old things have a poor character repertoire. Installing them, on a platform that doesn't have the font names in question, might make the result worse than what that platform would do if it was left to use its best fallback font. If you see what I mean. Installing them on a platform that *does* have a more recent version of the said fonts will most certainly cause harm. So proceed with caution. > If memory serves, that's Andale, Arial, MS Comic Sans, Georgia, > Impact, Times New Roman, Trebuchet, Verdana, I hope no-one's in any doubt here about the difficulties with Verdana. If font-size-adjust had been developed to the point of usefulness, it might be possible to work with Verdana, but, the way things are, I'd definitely counsel against it. sbpoley refers ;-) > and WebDings. Ouch!!! Don't *ever* do that with HTML. If you're unlucky, it might appear to do what you want. For many of your users, though, it will work to the HTML specification, which means it won't do what you want. See my page http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/charset/fontface-harmful thanks >> Microsoft's "core fonts for the web" are also freely available. > > Those old things have a poor character repertoire. Installing them, > on a platform that doesn't have the font names in question, might make > the result worse than what that platform would do if it was left to > use its best fallback font. If you see what I mean. I do see what you mean, but I wasn't suggesting that users should install those fonts. I was pointing out that a huge number of users - virtually all Windows users, all Mac OS X users, and even quite a few Linux users - will already have them installed. The wisdom of using specific font names at all is debatable, of course, but if you choose to do so, it makes sense to choose fonts your users are most likely to have - with the understanding, of course, that some users will not have that font, some will override your suggestions, etc. sherm-- SignatureWeb Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net > I'm trying to design my style sheets such that my pages have > similar-looking fonts different platforms (Linux, Mac, Adobe, > X-Windows, MS Windows, etc). "Similar" is a bad target on the web. Aim for "best" or "most appropriate" instead. 'Lucida Console' is a fine typeface as an alternative to Courier, so use it. Only the Windows users (most of them) will see it, but it isn't harmful to the Macs. If Macs have something similar (maybe Monaco, I don't know) then use that too. But take a real Mac user's advice here, not some reformatted screenshot -- things just look different on Macs, owing to the gamma variations as much as anything. CSS has good features for selecting fonts by preference and falling back if they're not there. Make use of them. font-family: 'lucida console', 'monaco', 'courier', monospace; is a good setting - it works, it works better in most contexts, and there isn't anywhere where it really fails. Avoid Verdana. Verdana is an evil font that lies about its size. As a result you just can't use it in conjunction with other fonts - you'd see noticeably bad size inconsistencies if you ever used the CSS fallback. If you must use Verdana, then use it alone. As Verdana is also a poor typeface (i.e. the shape, ignoring the size issues), then there's really no need to use it at all. >CSS has good features for selecting fonts by preference and falling >back if they're not there. Make use of them. >font-family: 'lucida console', 'monaco', 'courier', monospace; >is a good setting - it works, it works better in most contexts, and >there isn't anywhere where it really fails. I do that but I eliminate 'monaco' -- just having 'monospace' in there is a sufficient fallback. >Avoid Verdana. Verdana is an evil font that lies about its size. I am aware of all the issues with Verdana. In the site I'm developing, I don't use it at all. >As Verdana is also a poor typeface (i.e. the shape, ignoring the size >issues), then there's really no need to use it at all. Verdana actually makes nice headings (h1, h2, etc.), but I no longer use it for body text because it consumes too much space for its size. -A > 'Lucida Console' is a fine typeface as an alternative to Courier, so > use it. Only the Windows users (most of them) will see it, but it isn't > harmful to the Macs. Keeping in mind that 1) Windows does make a difference between generic "mono" and "monotype" font-family: Foo, Bar, mono will fail to Courier while font-family: Foo, Bar, monotype will fail to Lucida (if installed) 2) Some browsers (eehk) do parsing only for the first three (3) fonts in the list, so the regular formula is "MainFont, MostExpectedFallback, generic-font". 3) Older Macs can get weird if "pushed to the corner" (so no one font is presented), so the 3rd font should always be a generic one - as already suggested though, I just wanted to add a technical reason besides the theoretical ones. > Avoid Verdana. Verdana is an evil font that lies about its size. As a > result you just can't use it in conjunction with other fonts - you'd > see noticeably bad size inconsistencies if you ever used the CSS > fallback. If you must use Verdana, then use it alone. Verdana and its serif'ed partner Georgia are excellent widely used fonts. I may presume that their "evelness" in some eyes may be caused by wrong understanding of screen resolution issues, especially Mac vs. Windows >> 'Lucida Console' is a fine typeface as an alternative to Courier, >> so use it. Only the Windows users (most of them) will see it, but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to Courier while font-family: Foo, Bar, monotype will fail to Lucida > (if installed) "Monotype" is the name of a font-foundry; not a font, not a family of fonts. They invented the world's first mechanical typesetter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotype_Corporation SignatureJack. > "Monotype" is the name of a font-foundry; not a font, not a family of > fonts. They invented the world's first mechanical typesetter. Historically must be very true, but practically IE recognises two families: mono and monotype (Courier-like and Lucida-like respectively). These two generic families are also build into Dreamweaver, so this details shows up here and there across the Web. Say Google News interface seems to be made on Dreamweaver (surprise! :-) where the font-family is simply monotype (w/o particular fonts), so I saw everything in Lucida instead on Courier which I prefer - until I set CSS override. I'm ready to accept that it's a mistake made either by Dreamweaver or by IE years ago and now too late to fix for legacy issues. >> "Monotype" is the name of a font-foundry; not a font, not a family >> of fonts. They invented the world's first mechanical typesetter. > > Historically must be very true, but practically IE recognises two > families: mono and monotype (Courier-like and Lucida-like > respectively). CSS2 specification: "The following generic families are defined: 'serif', 'sans-serif', 'cursive', 'fantasy', and 'monospace'." No mention of "mono" or "monotype". In my experience, IE recognises "monospace". A quick test reveals that neither "mono" nor "monotype" results in a monospaced font. So whatever you mean by "recognises", you surely can't mean that IE treats these as references to a generic monospaced font. <html> <body> <p style="font-family: monospace">This should be monospaced.</p> <p style="font-family: monotype">This shouldn't be monospaced, and it isn't.</p> <p style="font-family: mono">This shouldn't be monospaced, and it isn't.</p> </body> </html> These two generic families are also build into > Dreamweaver, so this details shows up here and there across the Web. > Say Google News interface seems to be made on Dreamweaver (surprise! > :-) where the font-family is simply monotype (w/o particular fonts), By "where", do you mean Dreamweaver, or Google News interface? The css for Google News seems to use the generic family "monospace", but there's no trace of either "mono" or "monotype". As far as Dreamweaver is concerned, I couldn't possibly say; I use Notepad. As usual, your post is somewhere between terminally confusing and downright misleading. SignatureJack. > By "where", do you mean Dreamweaver, or Google News interface? The css > for Google News seems to use the generic family "monospace", but there's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > As usual, your post is somewhere between terminally confusing and > downright misleading. I'm letting people to point to someones rude mistakes: what sweeter than that? And what a great stress releaver! :-)) :-| "monotype" is indeed my invention due to a Freudistic *typ*o. Of course "monospace". "mono" is presented in older Dreamweaver (at least on my v2.1) but it is difficult to notice its bogus nature because it's pre-coded in the default font list "Courier New", Courier, mono so it almost never reaches the last option on UA. It is now confirmed (I presume) to be a mistake made by former Macromedia. Whoever uses Dreamweaver should check if their version contains this typo in the font list and edit it. The nature of troubles I described (and thanks to your tests and criticism) is in different treatment for monospace by IE and other browsers. IE uses for monospace Lucida wherever installed, even if Courier New is also presented. Firefox uses for monospace Courier New / Courier, even if Lusida is also installed. Demo for Windows platforms (Lusida set must be presented): <html> <head> <title>Test</title> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <style type="text/css"> .mn { font-family: Foobar, Eggog, monospace; } </style> </head> <body> <p class="mn">abcdefgh</p> </body> </html> > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" > content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> Specify the encoding (charset) in the HTTP header, which has precedence anyway. http://www.w3.org/International/O-HTTP-charset.html If you use a <meta charset> ersatz, then you *rely* on your HTTP header being defective. *Anything* called <meta http-equiv> is only a surrogate. > IE uses for monospace Lucida wherever installed, even if Courier New is > also presented. > Firefox uses for monospace Courier New / Courier, even if Lusida [sic] is > also installed. Although what you state may be the defaults for these two products, both can be USER defined, and therefore cannot be relied upon. Firefox: Tools / Options / General / Fonts & Colors IE: A couple of places - Tools / Interent Options Fonts / (Mine says Courier New, and I don't remember changing it, because I don't normall use IE at all) - Character >> By "where", do you mean Dreamweaver, or Google News interface? The >> css for Google News seems to use the generic family "monospace", [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm letting people to point to someones rude mistakes: what sweeter > than that? And what a great stress releaver! :-)) I'm not trying to relieve my own stress, and I don't mean to be rude. People come to this group for information, and if the information provided is inaccurate then people will be misled. You have posted misleading information repeatedly, and been pulled up on it each time. Why don't you simply learn to check your facts before posting? No doubt you have plenty of experience, at least within certain domains; maybe you could help people - but that won't be possible until you get your facts straight. You must have realised by now that people are looking out for inaccuracies in your posts. It's not personal; it's just that in an information-based newsgroup like this, inaccuracies *ought* to be corrected. You just seem to provide an awful lot of inaccuracies. SignatureJack. > Avoid Verdana. Verdana is an evil font that lies about its size. That is not true. Fonts sizes are specified by their vertical height from the top of the highest ascender to the bottom of the lowest descender. A font may appear larger if it has a larger "x height" (the height of a lowercase 'x'), but the difference is not enough to make the font difficult to read. > As a result you just can't use it in conjunction with other fonts - > you'd see noticeably bad size inconsistencies if you ever used the > CSS fallback. Only if you hard-code your widths. > If you must use Verdana, then use it alone. > As Verdana is also a poor typeface (i.e. the shape, ignoring the size > issues), then there's really no need to use it at all. It's not a bad face at all. I prefer Helvetica, but Verdana is also attractive. SignatureChris F.A. Johnson, author <http://cfaj.freeshell.org> Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) ===== My code in this post, if any, assumes the POSIX locale ===== and is released under the GNU General Public Licence > > Avoid Verdana. Verdana is an evil font that lies about its size. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > height" (the height of a lowercase 'x'), but the difference is not > enough to make the font difficult to read. That is also not true. Within a font's bounding box there is usually a bit of space above and below the tallest ascender and deepest descender. Verdana has less space above and below its tallest ascender and deepest descender than Arial does. It also has a taller x-height. There are other fonts that are big for their size. Helvetica Inserat and Block Berthold, for example, have a much taller x-height for their size than Verdana. And there are fonts - oldstyle and formal scripts especially - that are very small for their size. Note that in most fonts, accented characters such as Aacute (Á) extend above the font bounding box. See where the Aacute accent falls when you specify font-face: Verdana and line-height: 1. It's up among the descenders of the previous line. Daibhidh > font-face: Verdana ... Arg. I meant: font-family: Verdana. But y'all knew that, I hope! > The problem is, a font on one platform might be the same as a font on > another platform, but with different names. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html > but the page shows them all rendered as Windows fonts. You are confused and the author of this page is confused. First: Most typefaces exist at least for Macintosh and MS Windows, often also in two formats (TrueType and PostScript). So there is Arial for MS Windows, Arial for Macintosh, Helvetica for MS Windows, Helvetica for Macintosh. Second: Arial looks no more like Helvetica than Terence Hill looks like Franco Nero. >You are confused and the author of this page is confused. I don't think I'm confused at all. >First: >Most typefaces exist at least for Macintosh and MS Windows, >often also in two formats (TrueType and PostScript). So there is >Arial for MS Windows, Arial for Macintosh, Helvetica for MS Windows, >Helvetica for Macintosh. That's good to know. >Second: >Arial looks no more like Helvetica than Terence Hill looks like >Franco Nero. You're confused. The fact is, simply, that Arial looks a lot more like Helvetica than any other sans-serif font not called "Helvetica." Therefore, if I choose Lucida Console for monospaced text, I desire to specify a fallback font on other platforms that looks more like Lucida Console than any other monospaced font. On the Mac, that's apparently Monaco. Similarly if I use Verdana (not that I would) or Tahoma on Windows, I'd want the Mac to use Geneva and NOT Helvetica or Lucida Grande. Unfortunately the "equivalent" to Trebuchet MS is Helvetica on the Mac, which is decidedly not similar in appareance. My original question concerned the equivalences not just between Mac and Windows, but also Linux platforms. However, with another article in this thread recommending to specify no more than three fonts, with the last one being the default generic family, I'll make do with specifying a Windows font, equivalent Mac font, and a generic family. -A > You're confused. The fact is, simply, that Arial looks a lot more > like Helvetica than any other sans-serif font not called "Helvetica." Arial isn't actually a knock-off of Helvetica (which is an original Gill design, I think). Arial resembles Helvetica, but was designed as a new face. There are numerous copies of Helvetica that were specifically meant to look as close to the copyright original as possible, such as "Swiss", "Geneva" and so on. SignatureJack. >Arial isn't actually a knock-off of Helvetica (which is an original >Gill design, I think). Arial resembles Helvetica, but was designed >as a new face. Yes, I know. Helvetica is a print font. Arial is a video display font, basically Helvetica optimized for on a pixelized display at small font sizes. That's why you have a simpler-geometry G, why the tail of the capital R is less vertical, why the lowercase c is more open, etc. -A > You're confused. The fact is, simply, that Arial looks a lot more > like Helvetica than any other sans-serif font not called "Helvetica." Wrong -- Swiss 721 is almost indistinguishable from Helvetica. > Unfortunately the "equivalent" to Trebuchet MS is Helvetica on the Mac, > which is decidedly not similar in appareance. Why use Helvetica? Trebuchet MS is included in Mac OS X! see: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301332 > My original question concerned the equivalences not just between Mac > and Windows, but also Linux platforms. Each Linux distribution includes a different set of fonts, but the Nimbus fonts are fairly common, as they're included with Ghostscript; and the Bitstream Vera fonts are also common, as they're included with GNOME. Also, many Linux users will have installed Microsoft's Core Fonts. SignatureToby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact > Second: > Arial looks no more like Helvetica than Terence Hill looks like > Franco Nero. Wrong! Arial is a copy of Helvetica see this... http://central.kaserver5.org/Kasoft/Typeset/Fonts/Arial.html Yours in joy Steve www.fontmadness.com "In the jungle of the senses" >>Second: >>Arial looks no more like Helvetica than Terence Hill looks like >>Franco Nero. > > Wrong! Arial is a copy of Helvetica see this... > http://central.kaserver5.org/Kasoft/Typeset/Fonts/Arial.html That's like saying that if you put the word "Rolex" on a watch then it's a Rolex. Arial is NOT even a "copy" of Helvetica, it's an imitation. The original Arial used Helvetica's metrics so that theoretically it could be used to replace Helvetica and avoid reflow differences. With the later expanded character sets, even this is no longer true. For some detailed differences,see: http://www.ms-studio.com/articlesarialsid.html - Character > I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html > but the page shows them all rendered as Windows fonts. For example, > see Helvetica next to both Arial and Trebuchet; Helvetica looks like > either Arial or Trebuchet, but it can't be both. Even the Mac > screenshots look wrong; the all look like Windows fonts. The reason you are seeing them all as Windows fonts is that you are using Windows. Mac users will see them all as Mac fonts. You are simply seeing how the font-face list displays on your browser. If you didn't have Trebuchet MS installed you'd see Helvetica. If you had neither Trebuchet MS nor Helvetica you'd see sans-serif. There are many similar font families not listed that many users might have. For example, CorelDRAW comes with a trove of Bitstream fonts. Many of these are refinements by Hermann Zapf of his own earlier designs. Zapf Calligraphic, for example, is an analog for Zapf's Palatino. Zapf also refined Helvetica with a much greater range of font-weights and called it Swiss 721. A good listing of font analogs is here: http://www.fontinfo.net/Font_Analog.html MS webfonts aren't listed, but if they were, Arial would not rightfully be an analog for Helvetica as in some respects it is more like an oldie called News Gothic than Helvetica. Daibhidh >The reason you are seeing them all as Windows fonts is that you are using >Windows. No. I'm referring to the bitmap screenshots, which are OS independent. See the differing appearances of Helvetica on http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/img/Font-list-MacOSX-Safari-ClearType.png for example. I suspect that the Mac which generated that screenshot had some Microsoft fonts installed. >A good listing of font analogs is here: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >an analog for Helvetica as in some respects it is more like an oldie called >News Gothic than Helvetica. That's very helpful. Thanks. -Alex > No. I'm referring to the bitmap screenshots, which are OS independent. > See the differing appearances of Helvetica on http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/img/Font-list-MacOSX-Safari-ClearType.png > for example. I suspect that the Mac which generated that screenshot had > some Microsoft fonts installed. Yes, there is no doubt about it. Look at the Verdana and Tahoma. They are definitely not Geneva, nor is the Trebuchet Helvetica. That makes the comparison pretty useless. Arial and Helvetica fonts appear to have exactly the same size characters. The Arial terminals (e.g. the ends of the letter C) are not horizontal as Helvetica's are, the arm of the r is different, and the cap G and R have very noticable differences. I think the resolution of the screenshots is too low to see which is which without a cap G or R. See what I mean here: http://www.hpaa.com/css1/fontsample.gif Daibhidh > No. I'm referring to the bitmap screenshots, which are OS independent. Even these aren't entirely OS independent because of how Macs handle gamma differenty to PCs. This is very often enough to make otherwise identical fonts (or even screenshots of fonts) look clearer and brighter on a Mac. > I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html > but the page shows them all rendered as Windows fonts. That's because for each line of text, the webpage author lists a "windows" font first, followed by a mac font, followed by the generic. If you have neither the specified "windows" font nor the specified "Mac" font installed, you'll see the whole line of text in whatever you've selected for your browser's default serif or sans-serif or monospaced font. General comment: Aaargghhh! That page represents a great deal of what's wrong. In a page that's intended to help display web text selection, it does a crappy job. Because the page uses text instead of graphics, everyone will see the page differently, depending on what fonts THEY have installed. (Note: This does NOT depend on their operating system. PC Users CAN have Geneva, Helvetica, etc., and MAC users can have Tahoma, Verdana, et al) A good example is the three words "Geneva" in the left-hand column. I DON'T have Geneva installed, so what I see depends on the sequence of fonts the author of the page specified for each line. The first appearance, in the line "Tahoma, Geneva, Sans-Serif" uses Tahoma to display the line, including the word "Geneva" because what's specified is "font-family: Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif" The last one (on MY display) has a spur on the "G" - because what's specified is "font-family: MS Sans Serif, Geneva, sans-serif" Since I have MS Sans Serif (as a bitmap font), that's what I see the word "Geneva" in. This also explains why so many posters in this thread are saying "I don't see it that way; or Arial=Helvetica (which it doesn't) or "the Helveticas look different". What that page attempts to show is a couple of fonts in each category that most users might reasonably be expected to have on their system. It does NOT claim that the selections on each line are in any way equivalent, just that they're somewhat similar. Text will NOT look identical, it may not flow the same way, and may not even have the same characters available! - Character >> I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html >> but the page shows them all rendered as Windows fonts. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >General comment: Aaargghhh! That was my reaction after I figured out what was going on. The same is true for the bitmap images of the Mac displays. The Mac used obviously had some Windows fonts on it. -A > The same is true for the bitmap images of the Mac displays. The Mac > used obviously had some Windows fonts on it. If you're referring to the so-called "web fonts" from MS, those are shipping with the OS these days - have been since Mac OS X 10.0, IIRC. With the near- universal adoption of OS X, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a Mac user who *doesn't* have those fonts. sherm-- SignatureWeb Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net >> The same is true for the bitmap images of the Mac displays. The Mac >> used obviously had some Windows fonts on it. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > user > who *doesn't* have those fonts. This gives me an idea. How about a page that shows fonts in order of the market share they reach (based on the OSes or software they come with), and which can be filtered to show only what the potential designer currently has. That way I can choose a font that looks nice, and is likely to look the same to lots of people. I can then also choose a good fallback font so that almost everyone sees a site nearly as pretty, and a generic so that everyone can see the site in something at least useable. > > The same is true for the bitmap images of the Mac displays. The Mac > > used obviously had some Windows fonts on it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > universal adoption of OS X, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a Mac user > who *doesn't* have those fonts. Actually, these are included as part of the optional Internet Explorer package, not as part of the OS proper. Andre Signaturen.b. there are no monotremes in my email address > For example, "Lucida Console" is a very attractive and readable > monospaced font available in Windows. I now use it instead of > Courier for everything requiring monospaced text. I *think* that > the equivalent Mac font is "Monaco" -- but I'm not sure. Here's something that may be of use: http://buzzword.org.uk/fonts/ SignatureToby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact >Here's something that may be of use: > >http://buzzword.org.uk/fonts/ Thanks. That is helpful. -A > For example, "Lucida Console" is a very attractive and readable > monospaced font available in Windows. I now use it instead of > Courier for everything requiring monospaced text. I *think* that > the equivalent Mac font is "Monaco" -- but I'm not sure. Close enough. Few people are going to put a Mac right next to a PC just to criticize your web pages. I almost always says "Lucida Grande", "Lucida Sans Unicode", Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif Almost everyone has one of the first two. SignatureWes Groleau After the christening of his baby brother in church, Jason sobbed all the way home in the back seat of the car. His father asked him three times what was wrong. Finally, the boy replied, "That preacher said he wanted us brought up in a Christian home, and I wanted to stay with you guys." >Close enough. Few people are going to put a Mac right next >to a PC just to criticize your web pages. The trouble is that often the one person who does do this is the project manager, and even they don't realise it's an irrelevance. Also worth noting that on Mac, if the font in use doesn't have a particular glyph, the system is pretty clever about fetching that glyph from another very similar font. SignatureWes Groleau It seems a pity that psychology should have destroyed all our knowledge of human nature. -- G. K. Chesterton > Also worth noting that on Mac, if the font in use doesn't have a ^^^^^^ > particular glyph, the system is pretty clever about fetching that ^^^^^^ > glyph from another very similar font. It is the browser, not the operating system. And since Internet Explorer isn't used any longer on Mac OS X ...... SignatureNetscape 3.04 does everything I need, and it's utterly reliable. Why should I switch? Peter T. Daniels 2005 in <news:sci.lang> >> Also worth noting that on Mac, if the font in use doesn't have a > ^^^^^^ [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It is the browser, not the operating system. And since Internet > Explorer isn't used any longer on Mac OS X ...... Partly true. The browser can decline to take advantage of features in the system. Actually, though, they're not in the _operating_ system but in the graphics/text rendering system. In any case, I was surprised one day to find that certain Chinese glyphs were not present in my favorite font. EVERY browser I had tried showed them--and I did not detect the font switch. And Internet Explorer IS (reluctantly) used on my OS X. - there are still websites that refuse to cooperate with some browsers (my credit union claims its online services work only with Safari and Internet Explorer--but at least on my system, they DON'T work with Safari.) - when I am working on _my_ websites, I sometimes need to see what they look like on the <censored> thing that half the audience is using. SignatureWes Groleau "There ain't nothin' in this world that's worth being a snot over." -- Larry Wall Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> declared in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets: > - when I am working on _my_ websites, I sometimes > need to see what they look like on the <censored> > thing that half the audience is using. You do realise that Mac IE is a completely different beast to Win IE? SignatureMark Parnell My Usenet is improved; yours could be too: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html > You do realise that Mac IE is a completely different beast to Win IE? Of course. However, it DOES have some of the same flaws .... SignatureWes Groleau The man who says, "I can do it!" may sometimes fail. The man who says, "Impossible!" will never succeed. > > You do realise that Mac IE is a completely different beast to Win IE? > > Of course. However, it DOES have some of the same flaws .... Such as what ? >>> You do realise that Mac IE is a completely different beast to Win IE? >> Of course. However, it DOES have some of the same flaws .... > > Such as what ? Could we start with the incorrect box model implementation? SignatureWes Groleau ----------- Daily Hoax: http://www.snopes2.com/cgi-bin/random/random.asp > Could we start with the incorrect box model implementation? IE/Mac 5.x gets the box model right, though it does have a "quirks mode" which gets it wrong -- so do most other browsers though. SignatureToby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact >> Could we start with the incorrect box model implementation? > > IE/Mac 5.x gets the box model right, though it does have a "quirks mode" > which gets it wrong -- so do most other browsers though. How do you turn this mode off? Apparently it's on by default, because I never even heard of it, and it's wrong here. SignatureWes Groleau A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape lengthwise. > How do you turn [quirks] mode off? Apparently it's on by default, > because I never even heard of it, and it's wrong here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirks_mode SignatureToby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact >> How do you turn [quirks] mode off? Apparently it's on by default, >> because I never even heard of it, and it's wrong here. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirks_mode Hmmm. All my pages start with either HTML 4.01 strict or XHTML 1.0 strict (all right, MOST of them). And they generally validate (minor errors which I fix). So according to this article, IE and all the others should show me similar results. Hmmm. SignatureWes Groleau ----------- "Thinking I'm dumb gives people something to feel smug about. Why should I disillusion them?" -- Charles Wallace (in _A_Wrinkle_In_Time_) Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> scripsit: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirks_mode > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So according to this article, IE and all the others > should show me similar results. The conclusion is completely wrong. Browsers should not be expected to render a document in identical ways even if the document conforms to HTML and CSS specifications and the browser works in the so-called standards mode _or_ actually conforms to specifications (i.e., _really_ works by standards). The reason is simple: different browsers should be expected to behave differently. The presentation of a document may vary in aspects that are not covered at all in CSS, and different browsers may use different default style sheets. Whether the wrong conclusion is based on a correct reasoning based on false premises is irrelevant. Wikipedia is inherently unreliable and unstable and should not be used as a reference of any kind. SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ > Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> scripsit: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The conclusion is completely wrong. Browsers should not be expected to > render a document in identical ways even if the document conforms to Careful--language barrier: 'similar' does not equal 'identical,' and 'should' does not equal 'does.' > HTML and CSS specifications and the browser works in the so-called > standards mode _or_ actually conforms to specifications (i.e., _really_ > works by standards). The reason is simple: different browsers should be > expected to behave differently. The presentation of a document may vary > in aspects that are not covered at all in CSS, and different browsers > may use different default style sheets. Of course. But if I come to _this_ newsgroup, I am wanting to deal with issues related to what IS covered in CSS, specifically the CSS in _my_ stylesheet which should override the default. > Whether the wrong conclusion is based on a correct reasoning based on > false premises is irrelevant. Wikipedia is inherently unreliable and I'll go along with that. > unstable and should not be used as a reference of any kind. But not that. I see nothing wrong with using it to get an idea of what _might_ be true. Fact is, unless _I_ am in expert in a subject, I cannot be completely certain that the author of anything is both an expert and an honest person. Insofar as anyone can put anything into Wikipedia, it is probably about as reliable as Usenet. SignatureWes Groleau ---- The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson > with some browsers (my credit union claims its ^^^^^^ > online services work only with Safari and Internet > Explorer--but at least on my system, they DON'T > work with Safari.) Strange use of the word "claims". I'd've thought "admits" or "confesses" would be a more apt term. SCNR. > - when I am working on _my_ websites, I sometimes > need to see what they look like on the <censored> > thing that half the audience is using. Half your audience is using IE/Mac? I can't imagine there are many sites like this -- probably not even instruction sites explaining how to do things on IE/Mac. SignatureToby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact >> - when I am working on _my_ websites, I sometimes >> need to see what they look like on the <censored> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like this -- probably not even instruction sites explaining how to do > things on IE/Mac. If I want to see how IE on Windows screws things up, I need to go somewhere where there's a Windows machine. If I'm too lazy to travel that far, the closest I can get is IE on Mac. Which often does screw things up in a similar fashion. Also, when someone else's site "only works in IE," sometimes that means IE Windows, but often it just means IE. SignatureWes Groleau You're all individuals! Yes, we're all individuals! You're all different! Yes, we are all different! I'm not! ("Life of Brian") > If I want to see how IE on Windows screws things up, > I need to go somewhere where there's a Windows machine. > If I'm too lazy to travel that far, the closest I can > get is IE on Mac. Which often does screw things up > in a similar fashion. I've certainly never seen this. If I'm on a Mac and want to know how something will look in IE/Win, I'd have thought Safari, Firefox, Opera or iCab would be just as useful as IE/Mac. (i.e. not very useful at all.) SignatureToby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact > If I want to see how IE on Windows screws things up, > I need to go somewhere where there's a Windows machine. Or VirtualPC. > If I'm too lazy to travel that far, the closest I can > get is IE on Mac. IE/Mac is no closer to that than Safari. IE/Mac uses an entirely different code base. It's the same browser in name only. > Which often does screw things up > in a similar fashion. Opera might very well do the same, and for the same reason - coincidence. sherm-- SignatureWeb Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net > IE/Mac is no closer to that than Safari. IE/Mac uses an entirely different > code base. It's the same browser in name only. Name and overall appearance. And some specific details. >> Which often does screw things up >> in a similar fashion. > > Opera might very well do the same, and for the same reason - coincidence. It might. I have seen Opera screw some things up. But so far, I have not seen it screw up in the same manner as IE. SignatureWes Groleau ----------- Curmudgeon's Complaints on Courtesy: http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html (Not necessarily my opinion, but worth reading) >> IE/Mac is no closer to that than Safari. IE/Mac uses an entirely different >> code base. It's the same browser in name only. > > Name and overall appearance. And some specific details. IE/Mac is a *different* *browser* than IE/Win. I've been to the MacBU at Microsoft, and talked face-to-face with the authors. I asked them about this. There's no code in common. None. The fact that a site works (or doesn't work) in IE/Mac tells you absolutely *nothing* about how it will work in IE/Windows. sherm-- SignatureWeb Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net > IE/Mac is a *different* *browser* than IE/Win. I've been to the MacBU at > Microsoft, and talked face-to-face with the authors. I asked them about this. > There's no code in common. None. I won't question that at all. Nevertheless, it's not hard to see that they obviously made an effort to imitate some of the appearance and some of the UI behavior. And, ... > The fact that a site works (or doesn't work) in IE/Mac tells you absolutely > *nothing* about how it will work in IE/Windows. It's certainly no guarantee, but my experience is that for two browsers to interpret HTML or CSS significantly differently happens less often when the two are IE/Win and IE/Mac than when one of them is not IE. It's a probability thing, not a "they are the same" thing. On the other hand, I recently tried a CSS trick that the author said would not work in IE and it DID work in IE/Mac. The author firmly stated I was mistaken; it is impossible. SignatureWes Groleau "A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument." -- Ron Allen |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.