nick_theodorakis@hotmail.com (Nick Theodorakis) wrote:
[color=blue]
> One the one hand, there is the unfortunately too-common practice of
> suggesting a small font size for main text, then "rescuing" its
> legibility by also suggesting Verdana, in which case the text may be
> unreadable if Verdana is not available to the user.[/color]
U-huh. In which case the blame should be assigned correctly. To an
author's pathological desire to use the smallest text possible, not to
any alleged shortcomings of the Verdana font.
[color=blue]
> On the other hand, there is also the belief that Verdana is too "big
> looking" or otherwise unappealing at 1em. Although I happen to think
> it may look a little odd in such cases (although I wouldn't go so far
> to say it's ugly), surely there can be room here to account for
> personal taste?[/color]
U-huh. But there is no room for personal taste in the CIWAHian world.
Everyone must conform, in every way, every time.
[color=blue]
> On the gripping hand, at larger sizes (such as the typical browser
> defaults for <h2>), I actually think that Verdana looks pretty decent.
> So perhaps a case can me made for suggesting Verdana when the text is
> likely to be large (e.g., headings) or small (<sup>?) but not
> in-between.[/color]
Something both I and Lauri R. have previously said. I can't speak for
Lauri, but I still like Verdana for headings.
[color=blue]
> I think there also might be a case for not suggesting Helvetica, at
> least for a first choice. Although it is a beautiful font when done
> properly (if you like sans-serif fonts), some common browers (let the
> reader understand!) make an absolute mess of it. I also notice that my
> copy of Mozilla (1.4 on Win98) doesn't even try to render it; it
> sneakily slips Arial in its place, even though I have Helvetica
> installed.[/color]
[How do you tell the difference between real Helvetica and Arial?]
The real issue is what does the author hope to achieve in setting a
typeface at all? Is there actually any goal in mind, or is it merely
habit?
I think the constant stream of warnings about Verdana are just a
habit. What's its crime - being widely spaced? So what? Web pages
aren't books, we're constantly being hounded - put aside your
prejudices. If you print a book in a wide font it will literally cost
you more because you'll get fewer words per page and need more pages.
Web pages are as long as they are. The cost doesn't change with
typographical choices.
Now back to authors - if the desire is to use small sizes on screen
(why!?), specify high ex-height fonts. Something like:
"Georgia, Verdana, Tahoma"
"What? One is seriffed and others sans-serif!" says Mr Newbie.
So what? Eh, so what? OTOH, If the desire is merely to give a list of
commonly installed sans-serif fonts, Verdana is possibly
inappropriate. It seems to stand out as different in the commonly seen
"Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif". But then if you're just
listing commonly installed sans-serif fonts, for no particular
purpose, you're definitely on Team Clueless.
--
Karl Smith.
