Verdana font. Why not?

[Ståle Sæbøe]

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?

[Lauri Raittila]

in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.stylesheets, SeaPlusPlus wrote:

Lauri Raittila wrote:

Seems like I change my browser default font every month looking for that
perfect screen font. Neither Verdana nor Arial is it, of that I'm sure.
I'm not convinced there is only one, anyway. Sometimes serif is better,
sometimes sans. It depends on the content and how fatigued my eyes are.
Tim wrote:

I spent quite some time fiddling with the supplied fonts trying to find one
that was easy to read on my web browser (that was my main criteria, even
more so than looking brilliant). I settled on Georgia, for Windows.
Unfortunately its weight does waste toner while printing, so I'll probably
configure that differently.

Georgia is an excedllent choice for the screen it is highly readable.

Have you measured it? I find it harder to read than similar size TNR.
The correct print font would be Times New Roman this is the font
optimazed over many many years for print media. My body print CSS is...
(font: 10.5pt normal "Times New Roman", serif;)
I would use 11pt, or maybe even bigger, depending on content, and bigger
line height. 1.2 is quite little with typical A4 print width.
I have my own "sore eyes" CSS file to override some websites awful ideas
about what's readable, I apply it when I read a page that makes my eyes
hurt. It makes *all* text the same size (the size I find it easy to read
with), the exception being that headings are a bit bigger than the other
text.
I have similar stylesheet. Well, actually I have 3 different ones, big
with TNR, normal with Arial, Small with Arial.
It also kills the background and foreground colours, and adjusts the
line spacing.
I do background stuff in different stylesheet.
What were web browser authors thinking of when they squashed
the lines closer together than normal? Apart from being harder to read, as
soon as you use characters with accents, etc., they either overlap the line
above, or shove those lines of text further apart than the rest of the
document.
You usually see that when you override font size, and site has specified
1 for line-height...
But, in summary, ease of reading depends on a combination of factors:

Font design (it's style, if you like)
Font aspect ratio
Font size
Font weight
Inter-character spacing (Kerning) Inter-line spacing
Colours
Width of column (this is closely related to line-height)
Good sized paragraphs
Get them all right, which only I can do for myself, and I find reading to
be a breeze. Get only one of them only a small bit out of kilter, and it
makes reading a lot harder. While that may not be very significant for a
small page, it is for long pages, or where you've spent a long time reading
many pages.

Yes.
Emulate the look and feel of a book and you'll not be far from the 'ideal'.

Exept, that in WWW, you can overcome biggest problem of book - the
unability to have different properties people that need them. And other
users get tested default. And you don't have to do anything.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.

[Lauri Raittila]

in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.stylesheets, SeaPlusPlus wrote:

Lauri Raittila wrote:

That depends greatly on what you do with size. If user goes to site that
says 100% Verdana, he gets better font, if he doesn't have Verdana. But
if you say 80% Verdana, then user is very likely getting bad size. With
fonts that won't differ from normal subjective size, you get good results
even if the font is not available
That says what I believe... there is nothing 'wrong' with Verdana...
What's wrong is when it is misused. 80% is a misuse...

As is Verdana with 100% size for body text. That is way too big,
especially too vide, and I get short lines. And it is especially bad if
there is no big enaugh linespacing.
And, more importantly, body text should NOT be sans-serif no matter
which font you choose. EVER! ! !

That is bullshit, as anyone that has ever used 640*480 14" screen (and
most with 15" + 800*600) with proportional fonts knows (monospace are
usually much easier). But that is of course not problem with serifs, but
with inablilty to show serifs in reasonable size.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.

[Spartanicus]

Felix Miata <Ug************ ********@dev.nu l> wrote:

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.

--
Spartanicus

[Rick Cook]

SeaPlusPlus wrote:

Lauri Raittila wrote:

Yes. For body text, that is. For other text, it doesn't really matter
what you use. (with body text I don't mean all text in body element,
but all text that makes core of content.)

For body text I maintain that serif fonts only, should be suggested.
This is for readability and that is the whole idea of the body text...
it is to be read!!!

<snip>

I know that's true for print, but I was under the impression that sans
serif was easier to read on the screen. Is this correct?

--RC

[Ståle Sæbøe]

Martin Bialasinski wrote:

P.S. Don't change the post's subject at will, the subject of the
discussion has not changed. You are cutting of threading for many. And
if you do change it, please choose a meaningful one.

I was unaware of that and apologize.

The thread as a whole was becoming difficult to follow and some
arguments were repeated across the board, being beaten to death with a
stick. I wanted to wake up the participants to the fact that I differ
between "bad font" and "bad implementation of font", the latter which I
have conceded as a point already and noone seems to disagree with it so
to repeat it to the point of being rude is counterproducti ve.

[Ståle Sæbøe]

Harlan Messinger wrote:

Ståle Sæbøe wrote:

Harlan Messinger 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 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.

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.

[Frances Del Rio]

Ståle Sæbøe wrote:

Steve Pugh wrote:

Ståle Sæbøe <ot*****@tdz.no > wrote:

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 :)

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.........

[C A Upsdell]

Martin! wrote:

That's why using pt or px is a bad idea.

idealistic and thus unrealistic
I've used % for font sizing on dozens of commercial and public sector
web sites including some used by millions of visitors. Please tell me
how it is unrealistic?

in the sense that not everybody is willing to spend time and money to
tweak their code into a completely sizeable site.

What time and money? It is easier to do a fluid design, because you
don't have to worry about absolute dimensions.
not in the sense that it is impossible, which i am sure it often is.

I have never found it impossible. I have never found it hard.

[John C. Ring, Jr.]

In article <3a************ *@individual.ne t>, Frances Del Rio <fd***@yahoo.co m> wrote:

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/u...onlinetext.htm
http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/u...ws/3S/font.htm

[SeaPlusPlus]

>>Lauri Raittila wrote:

Yes. For body text, that is. For other text, it doesn't really matter
what you use. (with body text I don't mean all text in body element, but
all text that makes core of content.)

SeaPlusPlus wrote:

For body text I maintain that serif fonts only, should be suggested.
This is for readability and that is the whole idea of the body text...
it is to be read!!!
Lauri Raittila wrote:
But on low res, serifs are quite hard to read. So that is not good
advice. On resolution about 120ppi I find serif easier. For 96ppi, I
don't really know. For 72ppi, sans-serif is better. For me. (And I use
96ppi... I keep changing font when reading something...)
On low resolution, the resolution is low... no kidding... so if things
are that difficult on those screens then the user should be over-riding
with the user's own choices. Web pages should NOT be written for the
lowest common denominator. Web pages should be accomodative to change
such as font resizing. Web pages shouldn't have to look and read as a
school child finds in her first grade reader. sans-serif is the correct
choice for a miriad of reasons and they mostly have to do with
readability. Now if you are talking about reading "Times New Roman" at
low res yes that font sucks for display and you can see that in the
erradic letter spacing when viewed on the screen but if you print with
"Times New Roman" it looks and reads supurbly. That's why Georgia should
be used for screen and "Times New Roman" for the printer.
People usually prefer sans-serif, but I think I have read about study,
that proved that serifs were as good on normal size. But tiny serif fonts
are killer. So if you ever change font size to smaller, make it as sure
as possible that user won't get serif font.
Take a look around your public library. Open a slew of books and see
whether the prose in those books are serif or sans-serif. You'll find
that serif is the overwelming choice and has been for centuries. The
shape of the words is what we 'read'. The serifs are there to tie the
letters into words and to give the page a clean balanced look (no
splotches of gray). Again, if you have a feeling the font will not be
good enough specify Georgia... NOT "Times New Roman".
Links should blue if possible, while visited should be that purple. But
link colors are not that important

Links should be the same black. No, links should not be black. Black is least likely link color, so even
underlining might not make it apparent.
I said black meaning the color of the surrounding text. Remember these
words are words that have to flow in the sentences/paragraphs as well as
the non-link words. the underline is NOT used anywhere in prose and has
no other use so this fact makes it the ideal choice to indicate a link.
Personally I hover with the backgound going from the off-white to a
'slightly darker' gray. This gives the user a clear indication of what
the links are and whether they are live.
The color of the text for links should be the same as
the text, again, for readability. No, it should be different, to make it clear it is link. If it is too
hard to read, problem might be too long link text. Or unsuitable link
color. Links are very important, and should stand out.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040510.html
The underline makes it perfectly clear. Are you trying to say if you
were on a web site where underlines indicate links you wouldn't be able
to navagate?
Also... visited links of a different
color is a big waste... IMMHO...

Visited links must be in different color. Visited link is higly useful
indicator. You might use black here, but it might confuse.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040503.html

No they MUST be nothing of the sort. Indicating visited links is just a
gimmick and on a well constructed site are totally unneccesary.

If you have a convoluted web site that makes it a web and no hierarchy
then you have a need for design the flow better.

Thank you...

Rich