Script font on Web?

[Hymer]

Hello,

I used CSS to specify a line of type in Times New Roman, Italic. I notice
that the font seems to not be dithered on the webpage. That is, the font
looks a little ragged around the edges.

Is there a way to make a script font look as good as my non-script font?

Thanks,

Bob

[Lars Eighner]

In our last episode, <44************ ***********@new s.sonic.net>, the lovely
and talented Hymer broadcast on comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:

Hello,

I used CSS to specify a line of type in Times New Roman, Italic. I notice
that the font seems to not be dithered on the webpage.

You don't know what dithered means. You don't want fonts to be dithered.

That is, the font
looks a little ragged around the edges.

Is there a way to make a script font look as good as my non-script font?

What in the world do you mean by "script font"? Times New Roman italic is
not a script font. Beyond that, what a particular font looks like in your
browser is not much of an indication of what will show up in anyone else's
browser.
--
Lars Eighner http://larseighner.com/ http://myspace.com/larseighner
Fast, Cheap, Good: Choose any two.

[David E. Ross]

Hymer wrote:

Hello,

I used CSS to specify a line of type in Times New Roman, Italic. I notice
that the font seems to not be dithered on the webpage. That is, the font
looks a little ragged around the edges.

Is there a way to make a script font look as good as my non-script font?

Thanks,

Bob

For a discussion of script fonts (including a definition of "script
font"), see <http://bowfinprintwork s.com/ScriptIDGuide.h tmland related
pages.

However, you are interested in a variable-spaced, serif font, not a
script font. You should consider Georgia instead of Times New Roman.
Supposedly, Georgia provides good resolution both on a computer screen
and in printed hardcopy.

According to a May survey reported at
<http://www.codestyle.o rg/css/font-family/index.shtml>, Georgia was
active on 91% of Macs and 84% of PCs. Times New Roman was active on 89%
of Macs and 78% of PCs.

On a computer screen, the pixels are arranged in a grid that looks quite
good for vertical and horizontal lines but can be jagged for diagonal
lines. Thus, roman (upright) letters look better than italics
(slanted). As the type-size gets larger, italics look better since each
stroke of a letter occupies more pixels. The appearance is also better
for higher-resolution monitors, but some 20% of monitors (including
mine) are still set at 800x600.

In the end, you should use CSS to allow users to choose their own fonts,
according to what each user thinks looks better. You can specify a
font-family (serif [which includes Times New Roman and Georgia],
sans-serif, cursive [which includes script fonts], fantasy, or
monospace). You can also suggest a font within a family. However, not
everyone has the same set of fonts on their computers. (I have many not
even reported in the Code Style survey.) Thus, you should design your
pages to have an acceptable appearance even if the user chooses a font
you don't use.

Possibly with CSS3, Web fonts might be implemented to allow Web
developers to actually provide fonts with their pages according to a
common, universal specification. Don't hold your breath! The
specification for the Web Font module of CSS3 is not scheduled to be
finalized until 2008. No activity on this module has occurred since
2002. An unsuccessful attempt was made to include Web fonts in CSS2;
this was deleted for CSS2.1 because of a lack of consensus on how to
implement an unprecise specification.

You now know more than you wanted. Aren't you sorry you asked?

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/PGP/>

[Hymer]

"David E. Ross" <no****@nowhere .notwrote in message
news:Oa******** *************** *******@iswest. net...

Hymer wrote:

>Hello,

I used CSS to specify a line of type in Times New Roman, Italic. I notice
that the font seems to not be dithered on the webpage. That is, the font
looks a little ragged around the edges.

Is there a way to make a script font look as good as my non-script font?

Thanks,

Bob

For a discussion of script fonts (including a definition of "script
font"), see <http://bowfinprintwork s.com/ScriptIDGuide.h tmland related
pages.

However, you are interested in a variable-spaced, serif font, not a script
font. You should consider Georgia instead of Times New Roman. Supposedly,
Georgia provides good resolution both on a computer screen and in printed
hardcopy.

According to a May survey reported at
<http://www.codestyle.o rg/css/font-family/index.shtml>, Georgia was active
on 91% of Macs and 84% of PCs. Times New Roman was active on 89% of Macs
and 78% of PCs.

On a computer screen, the pixels are arranged in a grid that looks quite
good for vertical and horizontal lines but can be jagged for diagonal
lines. Thus, roman (upright) letters look better than italics (slanted).
As the type-size gets larger, italics look better since each stroke of a
letter occupies more pixels. The appearance is also better for
higher-resolution monitors, but some 20% of monitors (including mine) are
still set at 800x600.

In the end, you should use CSS to allow users to choose their own fonts,
according to what each user thinks looks better. You can specify a
font-family (serif [which includes Times New Roman and Georgia],
sans-serif, cursive [which includes script fonts], fantasy, or monospace).
You can also suggest a font within a family. However, not everyone has
the same set of fonts on their computers. (I have many not even reported
in the Code Style survey.) Thus, you should design your pages to have an
acceptable appearance even if the user chooses a font you don't use.

Possibly with CSS3, Web fonts might be implemented to allow Web developers
to actually provide fonts with their pages according to a common,
universal specification. Don't hold your breath! The specification for
the Web Font module of CSS3 is not scheduled to be finalized until 2008.
No activity on this module has occurred since 2002. An unsuccessful
attempt was made to include Web fonts in CSS2; this was deleted for CSS2.1
because of a lack of consensus on how to implement an unprecise
specification.

You now know more than you wanted. Aren't you sorry you asked?

Thanks a lot David. That does answer my question. Much appreciated.

Bob