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?
Jul 21 '05
300  18482 
>> 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!!!
Rick Cook wrote:
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?
Of course, what is good for reading in print (serif) would be good for
reading on a display screen (serif). This is because the serifs, the
little things at the ends of stokes and such, is what gives the letters
balance. When the letters are formed into words the words take on shapes
of their own. This makes reading (recognizing words) flow and you get
into a zone. When you read a paragraph that is done in sans-serif it is
more tedious, when all else is equal.
The problem that exists here in this discussion, is the font choices
people use/specify.
Times is a GREAT font for the printed word. This has been true a long
long time. Times is a TERRIBLE font for the displayed word. you can see
it very plain by looking for huge errors (for no apparent reason) in the
letter-spacing of certain words. if you print the same page those errors
magically disappear.
Georgia, on the other hand, was designed to be a display font and it
succeeds in being an excellent display font. this has to do with
creating a font while being mindful of the vertical strokes (lines)
which make up a display screen.
Thank you...
Rich
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Rick Cook wrote: 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?
That depends on the screen. Since you don't know what the screen is
(I correspond with a web designer who considers 65dpi to be normal - I
personally use about 135dpi on my desktop - and about 105 dpi on my
usual laptop - and I know at least one user who uses about 150dpi),
have you considered the possibility that the reader knows better
what's readable on their own display than the average web author could
ever do?
The principle seems to be:
* given arbitrarily high resolution, serif fonts are better
(printing!)
* given low-dpi screens, sans fonts have been proven in actual tests
to be better, even if that wasn't patently obvious to some of you...
* quite why MS decided to set their defaults to TNR, at a size that
I'd rate to be on the far side of too big, is somewhat beyond my
comprehension, but they sure as Hell didn't do it to pander to the
demands of "web deezyners" - maybe they knew a bit more about their
user base than we do, hmmm?
In short, my conclusion is that one or other of the following applies:
1. the user knows best what appeals to them. I stand no chance of
outguessing them (for body text). (Of course, decorative parts of the
page are a different matter).
2. if the user doesn't know best, then at least they have consented to
the defaults set by their vendor - whichever one it might be.
So, what do *I* gain by trying to insist on a body text presentation
that happens to appeal to me, in the browsing situation that I happen
to use? Can I leave that as an exercise for the student?
And then there are the vagaries of i18n....
in comp.infosystem s. www.authoring.stylesheets, John C. Ring, Jr. wrote: 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
- 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/u...ws/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.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
>>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 SeaPlusPlus wrote:
That says what I believe... there is nothing 'wrong' with Verdana...
What's wrong is when it is misused. 80% is a misuse...
Lauri Raittila wrote:
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.
Lauri...
Verdana is NOT the problem... the problem is this misuse. So the font is
NOT way too big. It is still the same point size is it not? It has a
bigger x-height and it is certainly wider (which provides for more
readability). So why do you insist on casting aspersions on the font?
the problem is the misuses.
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.
Well, you keep harping on the fact that low resolution screens make it
difficult to 'resolve' delicate character subtleties. No shit,
Sherlock... so what the user needs to do is to accomodate their lousy
screen with a forgiving font. That, madam, is not my job to provide
crumby fonts to the rest of the world because the user has a lousy
screen resolution.
Again, this has do to with the vertical line spacing of the fonts.
Georgia was designed with those restrictions in mind and therefore is a
good, no not just good, it a great choice for body text (or as I like to
call it... prose).
In the seventies all we had were poor resolution screens with monospace
fonts; I be **& &^^%^&* if I'm going to saddle my readers with that crap
on the odd chance that someone would like to view my site on museum
quality equipment. ;-)
As an aside... I remember how we thought we were in heaven when we
upgraded so our display screens actually could display LOWER CASE! ;-)
Thank you...
Rich
SeaPlusPlus wrote:
Emulate the look and feel of a book and you'll not be far from the 'ideal'.
Reading a book and reading on screen are two totally different things.
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
in comp.infosystem s. www.authoring.stylesheets, 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.) 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.
Why? For who it should be written? There is only one other option, as
that is clueful person, that has set his font settings well...
There is absolutely no reason to set font, and by not setting it you
usually get serif font anyway. But if you set serif font, you override
users setting of sans-serif. If you think you don't, tell me one browser
where it is simple to tell browser always use serif font...
Web pages should be accomodative to change
such as font resizing.
Of course.
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.
Exactly where I told to use sans font? See other part of this thread
where I try to convince people that serifs are often preferred, instead
of sans...
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".
I repeat. Don't set the font for body text. You will go wrong, every
time. Even if your choise of font is not bad for most, it usually won't
make situation any better either.
Links should blue if possible, while visited should be that purple. But
link colors are not that importantLinks 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.
That is even worse. It will look like it was same, and some clueless
person used underlining.
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?
No. I would be suspecious. Try to look naround in net, and report all
underlined text that is similar color to surrounding text. Unfortunate
surprise is that they are not links as likely as other stuff.
Do you have any reference to back up your idea that link colour should
not be distinctive?
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.
Obviously you didn't read the article? Obviously you have never thought
that I might leave your site for 10 days and then continue, and my memory
is not that good I would remember where I was, especially if I chose to
read your content randomly.
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.
There is large sites (where even best structure is not going to safe
you), and hierarchy only helps if your material is something like
reference material. If you have site with short stories, people won't
read it hierarchically, but somewhat random, lookin what might be
interesting. (unless you fail to provide information about content of
links)
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
kchayka wrote: John C. Ring, Jr. wrote:
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
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?
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.
Lauri Raittila wrote: 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
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, SeaPlusPlus wrote: Verdana is NOT the problem...
Not in itself, no - the problem is the complete lack of any meaningful
font-size-adjust facility in CSS. Without that, Verdana is so very
atypical that you would do better to avoid it in a WWW context, no
matter what its attractions might be in a controlled situation.
the problem is this misuse.
Petitio principii. If we can't agree what the problem is, how are we
ever going to agree what constitutes "misuse", riddle me that?
So the font is NOT way too big.
Oh yes it is, at a given nominal pt size. That's the whole point of
the problem. If you can't appreciate that, I'm not sure how we're
ever going to make progress. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: Anand |
last post by:
Hello,
I'm using the following style and am having a problem that Arial get's
rendered with fuzzy edges in the browser IE6:
..headline {
font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:16px;
font-weight:bold; color:#007550; line-height:16px;
}
If I use the same style, but with Verdana, the script has sharp edges.
..headline {
font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:16px;
|
by: Mary Ellen Curtin |
last post by:
I love Verdana and Georgia, because I can read them. I've read back
postings here on why the usual
font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif
spec is less than ideal, because (as I understand it) e.g. "a" in 12pt
Verdana is actually a different real size than it is in 12-pt Arial.
That,
of course, is one reason I find Verdana especially legible and lovable.
|
by: Karl Smith |
last post by:
Anyone who has read c.i.w.a.* for more than a few weeks knows that one
of the pet hates of the CIWAHians is Verdana (it's a typeface, BTW).
Future archeologists stumbling across these messages out of context
could be forgiven for thinking "Verdana" must be some kind of
dangerous animal. We must get rid of it, before it gets us!
Oddly, they can never seem to articulate *why* they dislike Verdana,
other than some vague assertion that it...
|
by: kchayka |
last post by:
<URL:http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size>
In the "recommneded practices", I don't agree with their second bullet
point, but the last 2 bullets sound like really bad advice, at least in
a WWW context.
How can they, in good conscience, advocate using font-size-adjust when
it is virtually unsupported, besides probably being dropped from the
next spec update? If they just made some disclaimers about browser
support or font availability on...
|
by: Randall Parker |
last post by:
Using IE 6.x (whatever is the latest) on Windows 2000.
For these two CSS definitions if I remove the 2 lines that have the
"mso-" font family definitions (mso-fareast-font-family, and
mso-bidi-font-family) then the "SmallerText" assigned as a class to a
div tag produces larger text than the "SmallerText2". So x-small is
treated as a bigger font size than plain old small.
How the heck is one supposed to know all the MS stuff one needs...
| | |
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it.
Here is my compilation command:
g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp
Here is the code in...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth.
The Art of Business Website Design
Your website is...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own....
Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one.
At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image.
Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
| | |
by: 6302768590 |
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
|
by: muto222 |
last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
|
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...
| |
