Font Issues

[shapper]

Hello,

I have been reading a lot about fonts and I got to the following
conclusions:
1.Use % do define font size
2. Avoid defining font in Body and P tags
3. Avoid using Verdana

I understand the reason of point 1.

Point 2 not sure why is that. Why?

Finally, I really like Verdana. Why should I avoid it using? Because
its size gets to small?
And is there a font similar to verdana that I can use?
Is just that I think Verdana is a really easy font to read and looks
good ... under normal conditions.

Thanks,
Miguel

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Stan Brown wrote:

Do you know why 100% Verdana is bad?

100% Verdana isn't bad.

But as is said oft times in these groups, unknowing authors look at
their own browsers, think that 100% Verdana appears too large, and so
change their style sheets to something usually 'round 80%. Then everyone
without Verdana gets the fall-back normal-sized font in flyspeck size.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

[Andreas Prilop]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Stan Brown wrote:

>The real problem is that {font-family: Verdana} almost always comes
with {font-size: 80%}. This is especially stupid when the reader
has already chosen Verdana in a suitable size as his preferred
font.

That would apply to any font. It sounds like the argument is against
defining font-size:80%, not against Verdana.

Sure, the bad thing is {font-size: 80%}. But I wrote: /especially/ stupid.

I am a reader with a browser that allows me to specify a suitable
font size in pixels or points.

(A)
I have Times New Roman as preferred typeface and a suitable size.
Now comes a web page with {font: 80% Verdana}. This might look okay
since Verdana is so large compared with Times New Roman that it
compensates for 80%.

(B)
I have Verdana as preferred typeface and a suitable size. Now comes
a web page with {font: 80% Verdana}. "Verdana" has no effect because
my typeface is already Verdana. But the size is now reduced to 80%
of my preferred size.

--
Bugs in Internet Explorer 7
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/ie7-bugs

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/11/20 18:19 (GMT+0100) Andreas Prilop apparently typed:

(A)
I have Times New Roman as preferred typeface and a suitable size.
Now comes a web page with {font: 80% Verdana}. This might look okay
since Verdana is so large compared with Times New Roman that it
compensates for 80%.

(B)
I have Verdana as preferred typeface and a suitable size. Now comes
a web page with {font: 80% Verdana}. "Verdana" has no effect because
my typeface is already Verdana. But the size is now reduced to 80%
of my preferred size.

(C) Verdana is so fugly I've removed it from my system. As a result,
everything in a CSS fallback list (e.g. Lucida Grande, Arial, Helvetica) that
specifies it is of smaller apparent size than Verdana.

See also: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Font/f...s-verd-v-times
--
" A patriot without religion . . . is as great a
paradox, as an honest man without the fear of God."
John Adams

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

[Stan Brown]

Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:29:53 GMT from Beauregard T. Shagnasty
<a.*********@ex ample.invalid>:

Stan Brown wrote:

Do you know why 100% Verdana is bad?

100% Verdana isn't bad.

But as is said oft times in these groups, unknowing authors look at
their own browsers, think that 100% Verdana appears too large, and so
change their style sheets to something usually 'round 80%. Then everyone
without Verdana gets the fall-back normal-sized font in flyspeck size.

So why does everyone here object to the thing that isn't a problem?

Maybe I'm handicapped by thinking logically, but if the problem in
"Verdana 80%" is the 80%, it seems a little silly to keep saying
"Don't use Verdana". "Don't use 80%" would seem to be a more
appropriate response, yet the veterans always seem to be on about
Verdana.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

[dorayme]

In article <MP************ ************@ne ws.individual.n et>,
Stan Brown <th************ @fastmail.fmwro te:

Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:29:53 GMT from Beauregard T. Shagnasty
<a.*********@ex ample.invalid>:

Stan Brown wrote:

Do you know why 100% Verdana is bad?

100% Verdana isn't bad.

But as is said oft times in these groups, unknowing authors look at
their own browsers, think that 100% Verdana appears too large, and so
change their style sheets to something usually 'round 80%. Then everyone
without Verdana gets the fall-back normal-sized font in flyspeck size.

So why does everyone here object to the thing that isn't a problem?

Maybe I'm handicapped by thinking logically, but if the problem in
"Verdana 80%" is the 80%, it seems a little silly to keep saying
"Don't use Verdana". "Don't use 80%" would seem to be a more
appropriate response, yet the veterans always seem to be on about
Verdana.

The idea is that the two things are connected as cause and
effect. Without Verdana, one (so the story is) major motivation
for messing with either default or explicit body {font-size:
100%; } is removed. So the removal is something big in the minds
of those who are greatly pissed off by over small text. I like
Verdana but am pissed off by small text and I am prepared to
sacrifice not seeing this pleasant enough font for this. Does
that help?

--
dorayme

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Stan Brown wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty:

>Stan Brown wrote:

>>Do you know why 100% Verdana is bad?

100% Verdana isn't bad.

But as is said oft times in these groups, unknowing authors look at
their own browsers, think that 100% Verdana appears too large, and so
change their style sheets to something usually 'round 80%. Then everyone
without Verdana gets the fall-back normal-sized font in flyspeck size.

So why does everyone here object to the thing that isn't a problem?

Maybe I'm handicapped by thinking logically, but if the problem in
"Verdana 80%" is the 80%, it seems a little silly to keep saying
"Don't use Verdana". "Don't use 80%" would seem to be a more
appropriate response, yet the veterans always seem to be on about
Verdana.

Sure. "Don't use 80%" is a great rule. But the only reason people write
that rule is because they chose Verdana. If they picked a normal sized
font, they would not be tempted to reduce the *size* to 80%.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Beauregard T. Shagnasty:

Stan Brown wrote:

- -

>Maybe I'm handicapped by thinking logically, but if the problem in
"Verdana 80%" is the 80%, it seems a little silly to keep saying
"Don't use Verdana". "Don't use 80%" would seem to be a more
appropriate response, yet the veterans always seem to be on about
Verdana.

Sure. "Don't use 80%" is a great rule. But the only reason people
write that rule is because they chose Verdana. If they picked a
normal sized font, they would not be tempted to reduce the *size* to
80%.

Unfortunately, authors reduce font size for many reasons. Verdana is not
the only one. Even Arial looks rather big in 12pt size, and authors who
assume that 12pt is the default font size (as it often is) then reduce
the font size by some percentage or set it in points or pixels.

Verdana is bad because it does not fit into the "let the user decide the
size" model. When a user decides on the font size, by setting the font
size in his browser, or by not setting it (i.e., defaulting it to
initial settings), he typically does not do this using Verdana but, say,
Times New Roman. When Times New Roman is conveniently readable, Verdana
of the same font size is surely too big.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Stan Brown]

Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:52:00 +0200 from Jukka K. Korpela
<jk******@cs.tu t.fi>:

Verdana is bad because it does not fit into the "let the user decide the
size" model. When a user decides on the font size, by setting the font
size in his browser, or by not setting it (i.e., defaulting it to
initial settings), he typically does not do this using Verdana but, say,
Times New Roman. When Times New Roman is conveniently readable, Verdana
of the same font size is surely too big.

Thank you! I can understand *that* reason -- if the user sets her own
font size for her own preferred non-Verdana font, and the author
specifies Verdana, it's going to look uncomfortably big to the user.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/11/21 07:52 (GMT+0200) Jukka K. Korpela apparently typed:

When Times New Roman is conveniently readable, Verdana
of the same font size is surely too big.

Bigger doesn't necessarily equate to "too big", or to "bad".
--
" A patriot without religion . . . is as great a
paradox, as an honest man without the fear of God."
John Adams

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/11/21 07:48 (GMT-0500) Stan Brown apparently typed:

if the user sets her own
font size for her own preferred non-Verdana font, and the author
specifies Verdana, it's going to look uncomfortably big to the user.

Maybe yes, maybe no. I've been doing a lot of reading about font sizes the
past couple days, leading me to an even stronger opinion that web
developers/designers are a special class of people who like smaller sizes
than virtually everyone else on this planet. The larger group seems to have
no problem with "large" sizes. Most people I know who have stated an opinion
on the subject find average web page text too be too small. Those who don't
make that claim I watch leaning forward and squinting to see. Their body
language seems more honest.
--
" A patriot without religion . . . is as great a
paradox, as an honest man without the fear of God."
John Adams

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/