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?

[Arne]

Once upon a time *Ståle Sæbøe* wrote:

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?

I'll guess most Windows systems have also Verdana, about other systems
(like Mac and Linux) I'm not sure. You should not use pixels (or
points) for font size, and leave to the user to see the font in
prefered (default) size. Under sutch circumstances I'll guess it's
possible to use Verdana, even if it's not a prefered font.

--
/Arne

Proud User of Mozilla Suite. Get your free copy here:
*English* http://www.mozilla.org/products/mozilla1.x/
*Svenska* http://www.mozilla.se/mozilla.shtml

[Steve Pugh]

Ståle Sæbøe <ot*****@tdz.no> wrote:

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.
What size are they suggesting it be used at? If Verdana at the browser
default size is the look they are after then go for it.

If they're suggesting that it be used at a smaller font size then they
are in fact agreeing with...
The HTML "hardcore elititst" profess that it is a useless font because
it is too big compared to other fonts.
Use Verdana, set a font-size that makes Verdana look right to you. Now
delete Verdana from your system (or just comment it out in your
stylesheet). Does the text still look right with your fallback font?
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.
Ah but who do you trust on matters of accessibility and usability?
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.
Not "a large number", just "a number".
Can anyone honestly say they do not have the Verdana font installed?

According to http://www.visibone.com/font/FontResults.html 98% of
users have Verdana installed.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

[Curt Balluff]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:02:34 +0100, Ståle Sæbøe <ot*****@tdz.no>
wrote:

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.
Verdana is a screen-optimized font while Arial is a print-optimized
font. So I think Verdana is a good choice.

Verdana, Helvetica ,sans-serif; would be my chioce for font-family.

[...] support it and therefore it causes theirpages to render with a very small font.

Use em or px
don't use pt

Curt

[Spartanicus]

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:

Use Verdana, set a font-size that makes Verdana look right to you. Now
delete Verdana from your system (or just comment it out in your
stylesheet). Does the text still look right with your fallback font?

For me that test isn't convincing if the font size is set at 86%.

Some other tests:

Using a browser that has an appropriately sized serif font specified as
the default font, create a page that uses a Verdana font, size it so
that it looks nice. Now configure Verdana as you preferred font in your
browser's preferences, set the default size so that it looks right with
a webpage that does not specify a font size. Now view the page where you
use the sized Verdana font.

Take the Verdana page from the previous example and view it on a
computer with a high resolution screen like the Dell Inspiron 9300
Laptops with the WUXGA option (resolution is approx 150PPI), using the
out of the box browser serif font setting.

Both tests result in nigh unreadable text. The last test is very useful
to convince designers and clients of the error of their ways, it doesn't
take much imagination to see that type of computer in the hands of the
higher echelons of the corporate world, the type of people that can make
or break the success of a web site.

--
Spartanicus

[Ståle Sæbøe]

Steve Pugh wrote:

Ståle Sæbøe <ot*****@tdz.no> wrote:

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. What size are they suggesting it be used at? If Verdana at the browser
default size is the look they are after then go for it.

Varies wildly in relation to the overall design.
If they're suggesting that it be used at a smaller font size then they
are in fact agreeing with...

The HTML "hardcore elititst" profess that it is a useless font because
it is too big compared to other fonts. Not completely, the design of the font itself is said to promote
readability. This is actually a kind of science and has to do with the
actual shaping of the letters, text flow and how the eye captures it.
The Verdana is best for the screen, Times is best on paper (or so the
"experts" say).
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. Ah but who do you trust on matters of accessibility and usability?

That is a matter of requirement specifications, but I do advocate a
general attitude towards making web pages accessible. In some cases it
comes down to compromise.
According to http://www.visibone.com/font/FontResults.html 98% of
users have Verdana installed.

Interresting statistics, thx! :)

I am still not convinced Verdana is a bad font.

[Steve Pugh]

Spartanicus <[e-mail]> wrote:

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:

Use Verdana, set a font-size that makes Verdana look right to you. Now
delete Verdana from your system (or just comment it out in your
stylesheet). Does the text still look right with your fallback font?

For me that test isn't convincing if the font size is set at 86%.

86% is larger than most designers I've encountered would like with
Verdana. Typically they suggest sizes that work out as 55%-75%.

[snip good advice]

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

[Steve Pugh]

Curt Balluff <po**@curt-balluff.de> wrote:

Use em or px
don't use pt

px is every bit as bad as pt. Em has bugs in IE. % is the best choice.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

[Ståle Sæbøe]

Spartanicus wrote:

For me that test isn't convincing if the font size is set at 86%. Why not 100%? Take the Verdana page from the previous example and view it on a
computer with a high resolution screen like the Dell Inspiron 9300
Laptops with the WUXGA option (resolution is approx 150PPI), using the
out of the box browser serif font setting.

I do not downsize the Verdana font for the main texts. It is perfectly
fine with 100%. I use 120 PPI myself and have no problem with 100% Verdana.

[Steve Pugh]

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?

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

[Ståle Sæbøe]

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 :)

[Steve Pugh]

Ståle Sæbøe <ot*****@tdz.no> wrote:

Spartanicus wrote:

For me that test isn't convincing if the font size is set at 86%.

Why not 100%?

Because if the text is at 100% there's no problem. The fallback font
will be displayed just fine.

The normal situation is that designers want Verdana displayed at some
smaller size (typically 9px - 12px compared with the common browser
default of 16px). In those case Verdana may be legible but the
fallback font often isn't.

Take the Verdana page from the previous example and view it on a
computer with a high resolution screen like the Dell Inspiron 9300
Laptops with the WUXGA option (resolution is approx 150PPI), using the
out of the box browser serif font setting.

I do not downsize the Verdana font for the main texts. It is perfectly
fine with 100%. I use 120 PPI myself and have no problem with 100% Verdana.

Of course you don't. That's not the problem. The problem is when you
specify Verdana and specify a smaller than default font size. Then you
get a problem when Verdana is removed.

But most designers think that Verdana at 100% looks too big and so
insist on a smaller size. Heck, often designers insist that Arial or
TNR at 100% is too big...

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

[Martin!]

Spartanicus wrote:

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:

Use Verdana, set a font-size that makes Verdana look right to you. Now
delete Verdana from your system (or just comment it out in your
stylesheet). Does the text still look right with your fallback font?

For me that test isn't convincing if the font size is set at 86%.

Some other tests:

Using a browser that has an appropriately sized serif font specified as
the default font, create a page that uses a Verdana font, size it so
that it looks nice. Now configure Verdana as you preferred font in your
browser's preferences, set the default size so that it looks right with
a webpage that does not specify a font size. Now view the page where you
use the sized Verdana font.

Take the Verdana page from the previous example and view it on a
computer with a high resolution screen like the Dell Inspiron 9300
Laptops with the WUXGA option (resolution is approx 150PPI), using the
out of the box browser serif font setting.

Both tests result in nigh unreadable text. The last test is very useful
to convince designers and clients of the error of their ways, it doesn't
take much imagination to see that type of computer in the hands of the
higher echelons of the corporate world, the type of people that can make
or break the success of a web site.

your test sounds very interesting, unfortunatly i dont have a 150dpi
laptop at hand. maybe you could make some convincing screenshots of your
test results.

looking forward to be convninced :)

gr
martin

[Spartanicus]

Ståle Sæbøe <ot*****@tdz.no> wrote:

I do not downsize the Verdana font for the main texts. It is perfectly
fine with 100%. I use 120 PPI myself and have no problem with 100% Verdana.

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%.

--
Spartanicus

[Spartanicus]

"Martin!" <ma**********@home.nl.knip.knip.knip> wrote:

your test sounds very interesting, unfortunatly i dont have a 150dpi
laptop at hand. maybe you could make some convincing screenshots of your
test results.

A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical
to a native 90PPI display :)

--
Spartanicus

[Martin!]

Steve Pugh wrote:

Curt Balluff <po**@curt-balluff.de> wrote:

Use em or px
don't use pt

px is every bit as bad as pt. Em has bugs in IE. % is the best choice.

Steve

maybe if you want your site to be accessable by the largest possible
audience, but not many sites aim at 'everybody'.

it is also not easy to make a site 'right' for resolution varying from
mobile phone to WHUXGA, therefor people often settle for a range between
VGA and SVGA. in a small range like this font sizes can be defined with
an absolute unit without causing the site to be unreadable.

thus, what is best depends on your quality defenitions which are defined
by your audience (or client).

gr
martin

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Martin! wrote:

your test sounds very interesting, unfortunatly i dont have a 150dpi
laptop at hand. maybe you could make some convincing screenshots of
your test results.

This is a wind-up, isn't it?

Or don't you see the illogicality of your suggestion?

Try viewing your own display at double the normal viewing distance -
that might give you *some* idea how it would look at 150dpi. Just
taking a 150dpi screenshot, and viewing it at your usual 72dpi or
whatever it is that you've got, doesn't prove much at all.

[Martin!]

Spartanicus wrote:

"Martin!" <ma**********@home.nl.knip.knip.knip> wrote:

your test sounds very interesting, unfortunatly i dont have a 150dpi
laptop at hand. maybe you could make some convincing screenshots of your
test results.

A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical
to a native 90PPI display :)

ic .. so i misunderstood some units, doesnt make screenshots of these
test less interesting.

[Spartanicus]

Ståle Sæbøe <ot*****@tdz.no> wrote:

The HTML "hardcore elititst" profess that it is a useless font because
it is too big compared to other fonts.

Not completely, the design of the font itself is said to promote
readability. This is actually a kind of science and has to do with the
actual shaping of the letters, text flow and how the eye captures it.
The Verdana is best for the screen, Times is best on paper (or so the
"experts" say).

The proper scientific tests that have been conducted do not confirm a
better legibility for Verdana, they do confirm that users have a certain
preference for Verdana on esthetic grounds.

--
Spartanicus

[Spartanicus]

"Martin!" <ma**********@home.nl.knip.knip.knip> wrote:

A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical
to a native 90PPI display :)

ic .. so i misunderstood some units, doesnt make screenshots of these
test less interesting.

You clearly are not understanding the issue.

--
Spartanicus

[Martin!]

Spartanicus wrote:

"Martin!" <ma**********@home.nl.knip.knip.knip> wrote:

A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical
to a native 90PPI display :)

ic .. so i misunderstood some units, doesnt make screenshots of these
test less interesting.

You clearly are not understanding the issue.

could be, if not, you can ignore my reply.
still i would be interested to 'see' an example of your test.

[Steve Pugh]

"Martin!" <ma**********@home.nl.knip.knip.knip> wrote:

Steve Pugh wrote:

Curt Balluff <po**@curt-balluff.de> wrote:

Use em or px
don't use pt
px is every bit as bad as pt. Em has bugs in IE. % is the best choice.

maybe if you want your site to be accessable by the largest possible
audience, but not many sites aim at 'everybody'.

Do you have any studies that show a strong correlation between
demographics and/or interest in a given subject and technology used to
surf the web? Or between those factors and visual acuity? Please post
the URLs.
it is also not easy to make a site 'right' for resolution varying from
mobile phone to WHUXGA,
Yes it is.
therefor people often settle for a range between
VGA and SVGA. in a small range like this font sizes can be defined with
an absolute unit without causing the site to be unreadable.
The range on common desktop displays is now from about 70ppi to
150ppi. Fonts specified in pixels will hence vary by at least a factor
of two between different desktops. 9px or 12px may be very legible at
70ppi but totally unreadable at 150ppi.

Then there's the problem that Windows IE users can not resize text
sized in px without digging into the settings to disable all font
sizing.
thus, what is best depends on your quality defenitions which are defined
by your audience (or client).

And how is the "quality definition" that states 'any visitor can read
the text on this site' ever wrong?

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

[Ståle Sæbøe]

Spartanicus wrote:

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:
Some other tests:

You do not need a test for this it is a valid logical argument. a is
smaller than b. Reduce the size of both a and b by an equal percentage.
a is still smaller than b.

There is no one who contests this here.

[Ståle Sæbøe]

Ståle Sæbøe wrote:

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. We agree that people tend to like this font for aesthetic reasons. The HTML "hardcore elititst" profess that it is a useless font because
it is too big compared to other fonts. This is only a problem for browsers/users that do not have/use Verdana 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. Accessibility can sometimes be compromized for the sake of 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.

Statistics indicate that more than 90% of all users have Verdana available.

Common accessability options:
Private CSS sheet/Override styles
Quick resize with wheeled mouse (control-roll)

It seems to me that if the user absolutely does not want to see web
pages in Verdana, he can easily override it and resize his own font to
suit his needs.

[Spartanicus]

"Martin!" <ma**********@home.nl.knip.knip.knip> wrote:

A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical
to a native 90PPI display :)

ic .. so i misunderstood some units, doesnt make screenshots of these
test less interesting.

You clearly are not understanding the issue.

could be, if not, you can ignore my reply.
still i would be interested to 'see' an example of your test.

A screen shot of what it looks like on a high resolution screen viewed
on a lower resolution screen would magnify the result, thereby making
the exercise pointless.

--
Spartanicus

[Martin!]

Spartanicus wrote:

"Martin!" <ma**********@home.nl.knip.knip.knip> wrote:

>A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical
>to a native 90PPI display :)

ic .. so i misunderstood some units, doesnt make screenshots of these
test less interesting.

You clearly are not understanding the issue.

could be, if not, you can ignore my reply.
still i would be interested to 'see' an example of your test.

A screen shot of what it looks like on a high resolution screen viewed
on a lower resolution screen would magnify the result, thereby making
the exercise pointless.

use a camera

[Spartanicus]

Ståle Sæbøe <ot*****@tdz.no> wrote:

You do not need a test for this it is a valid logical argument. a is
smaller than b. Reduce the size of both a and b by an equal percentage.
a is still smaller than b.
But by a factor of 2.
There is no one who contests this here.

You seem to argue that it's ok to loose a percentage of visitors for the
sake of esthetics. The beauty of the web is that the next service or
shop is only a few clicks away. Anyone using a web site to generate
revenue who favours their aesthetic preference over turnover is a fool.

Anyone using a website to provide information that is more or less
unique like governmental sites often has an obligation to make it
accessible to the widest possible audience.

--
Spartanicus

[kchayka]

Curt Balluff wrote:

Verdana, Helvetica ,sans-serif; would be my chioce for font-family.

I'm in agreement with others that Verdana is a poor choice for body
text, especially since I don't have it installed. ;) But I would drop
Helvetica from this list, too, for another reason.

My Linux distro came with multiple versions of Helvetica (Adobe, URW and
others). Mac OSX may do likewise, I don't remember. The aspect ratio
between different versions can be quite different, so at a given
font-size one may be quite readable and another not.

You, as an author, cannot know exactly which Helvetica my browser will
pick up. Best not to specify it at all.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Martin!]

Spartanicus wrote:

"Martin!" <ma**********@home.nl.knip.knip.knip> wrote:

>A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical
>to a native 90PPI display :)

ic .. so i misunderstood some units, doesnt make screenshots of these
test less interesting.

You clearly are not understanding the issue.

could be, if not, you can ignore my reply.
still i would be interested to 'see' an example of your test.

A screen shot of what it looks like on a high resolution screen viewed
on a lower resolution screen would magnify the result, thereby making
the exercise pointless.

a photograph of your screen would maybe do the job
maybe also place a ruler before your screen, so we can see what the
actual size was.

[Dave Anderson]

Ståle Sæbøe wrote:

Steve Pugh wrote:

According to http://www.visibone.com/font/FontResults.html 98% of
users have Verdana installed.

Interresting statistics, thx! :)

But what's their exact methodology for computing those numbers? A quick
look at the site didn't find any information on the subject, and the
quality of the results is critically dependent on it. I've no doubt
that the real percentage is high (probably including just about every
Windows system that exists), but without further information I'd take
the 98% value with a large grain of salt.
I am still not convinced Verdana is a bad font.

You're misstating the issue -- it's not whether Verdana is a bad font
but whether Verdana is suitable for the author to specify as the default
font for a web page.

Given that Verdana is not universally available and that its visual
properties are sufficiently different from those of most other fonts
that the page is likely to be unreadable if Verdana is not available, it
seems pretty clear to me that (except in special cases) Verdana as an
author-specified default is a bad choice.

Dave

[Lauri Raittila]

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?ISO-8859-
1?Q?St=E5le_S=E6b=F8e?= wrote:

Ståle Sæbøe wrote:

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.
Usually, it is just that design people seem to like small fonts, and
Verdana is one of the few that can be read confortably on smallest sizes.
That is of course because Verdana is much bigger font than most others...

BTW, Verdana has disadvantage of using much more space. If you use 85%
Verdana, which I find dimilar sized as 100% TNR, they take as much space
when displaying text. And if you use more than default 1.2 line-height,
difference is even bigger.

And I do prefer 100% TNR to any size Verdana, as it is much clearer,
especially on smallish line height. If I want to fit more in page, I will
use Arial. (for reading www, I don't set body font of website.)

We agree that people tend to like this font for aesthetic reasons.

The HTML "hardcore elititst" profess that it is a useless font because
it is too big compared to other fonts.

I don't like to read wrong size text with wrong font. The right font
and size is not fixed even for myself, so when doing empirical test on
myself, I find out that fonts set by author are bad choise, no matter
what they are. The change that author finds perfect font combination does
not exist. It is not even possible for print media, where you can be sure
that font of your choise is available...
This is only a problem for browsers/users that do not have/use Verdana

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.

So do I. But I generally trust typographer more when talking about
laying out text, and avarage HMTL+CSS coder is nearer to typographer than
most web designers. Typographers don't even consider Verdana (it is
disliked even more than Arial). Go to font newsgroup, and suggest to use
Verdana, no matter what purpose, and you see... With totally different
arguments... (most of which I hardly understand)
(many typographers don't even think about possibility that font is not
available, or that it would be appear in different size - even if font is
some obscure font that you used to be able to buy for $1000 from company
that has not been existing in ten years, they recommend it if they think
it is the best)

Try to read a book that is laid out by designer, and you see - even if it
is best print quality on high quality paper, it is harder to read that
avarage newspaper...
Accessibility can sometimes be compromized for the sake of design.
But not when you cause problems for *majority*, or very large group of
users.

If there is one size and font that is good for all, why are all these
designer pages using *different* size?
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.

That is not really as relevant anymore, as it used to be. In few years
ago, when persentage was something like 50%, it was obviously very good
reason.
Statistics indicate that more than 90% of all users have Verdana available.
But some of them might have it as default font, and the fact that it is
available don't mean people are happy with it.
Common accessability options:
Private CSS sheet/Override styles
Will override everything, which is usually bad thing. And there is no way
to locate elements that use Verdana. Only option is to suppress all font
size and family changes, which in other hand will break 50% of pages out
there that don't have heading elements.

This is not usable option for people that don't know much about issue.
Quick resize with wheeled mouse (control-roll)
Is constant action. Not nice. And not available in most browsers by
default. (Opera and IE don't have text zoom by default)

Also, in case mjissing verdana font, text zoom won't work when other font
is used as well.
It seems to me that if the user absolutely does not want to see web
pages in Verdana, he can easily override it and resize his own font to
suit his needs.

No, that is not possible. I tried, and failed. But considerable time on
project. It is possible, of course, all you need is to do is to build
proxy with good AI.

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

[Dave Anderson]

Ståle Sæbøe wrote:

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.

You're ignoring a fundamental fact about the web -- "the designer" *can*
*not* control anything. Once the page content is handed off to a user,
his software can do anything it wants to with it. Everything that the
designer specifies is, at best, a suggestion. That's the way that the
web works, at a very basic technical level. There's nothing that you
can do about it -- if you don't like it, your only choice is to not
author web pages.

Dave

[Andreas Prilop]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Ståle Sæbøe wrote:

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.
Exactly! You are right!
Now you only have to understand that the WWW isn't "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.
No. It's the combination of "font-family: Verdana" with "font-size: 80%".
If you don't specify a font-size and if you know _exactly_ what you
are doing, it may be OK to specify Verdana (and Tahoma). I do it myself:
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nht...-alphabet.html
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/table7.css
Can anyone honestly say they do not have the Verdana font installed?

[Verdana is a typeface consisting of four fonts.]
Verdana does not come with Solaris 9. Where can I get it (legally)?
A version of Verdana is (or was) available for Mac OS that covers
only the MacRoman character set. A Windows version (How many are there?)
covers WGL4. So which characters are covered by Verdana?

--
Mars, unlike Earth, has no atmosphere.
The Chicago manual of style, 15th ed., p. 362

[Dave Anderson]

Ståle Sæbøe wrote:

It seems to me that if the user absolutely does not want to see web
pages in Verdana, he can easily override it and resize his own font to
suit his needs.

Given a reasonable browser he can, but will he bother?

A common response when a web page intially appears as an unreadable mess
is for the user to ask himself "do I really want to deal with an
organization that has already demonstrated its incompetence?" and
immediately move on to a competitor's web site. Even if he stays and
wastes time fiddling around to make the site usable to him, the user is
likely to be muttering to himself "goddamn incompetent d3ziiner d00dz"
-- which is not a good way to start a relationship.

Dave

[Harlan Messinger]

Arne wrote:

Once upon a time *Ståle Sæbøe* wrote:

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.

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.

[Stan Brown]

"Ståle Sæbøe" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

I am a bit curious about this.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/

[Stan Brown]

"Ståle Sæbøe" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

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.

Graphic design for paper and for screen viewing are two very
different things. Graphic designers who work with a view toward
printing will, as a general rule, not serve you well for screen
viewing.

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/

[Martin Bialasinski]

Ståle Sæbøe <ot*****@tdz.no> wrote:

The HTML "hardcore elititst" profess that it is a useless font
because it is too big compared to other fonts.

This is only a problem for browsers/users that do not have/use
Verdana

Consider this:

The Designer has his default font size at factory setting of 12px, the
web font is the factory setting of Times New Roman. He likes Verdana,
so he defines it as the font face for the text. But 12px Verdana is
bigger than other fonts at 12px, so he sets the body font size to 75%,
which gives him a pleasing font height at his screen.

Now here I am. I also like Verdana, so I set it as my default browser
font. My eyes are not the best, so I have chosen font size 15px,
which I find pleasing to read.

Now I visit the designer's web site. The text will be shown in Verdana
at 11px (=75%), which is too small for me to read comfortable. And
this is just the normal text. There are usually elements like remarks,
that get a even smaller font size assigned to.

It is OK to define Verdana as the font face, as the body font size is
set to 100%. And I have not seen a page doing this. They all scale
Verdana down.

Bye,
Martin

[Els]

Martin Bialasinski wrote:

It is OK to define Verdana as the font face, as the body font size is
set to 100%. And I have not seen a page doing this. They all scale
Verdana down.

Then you haven't looked at my site. 100% Verdana ;-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

[Ståle Sæbøe]

Dave Anderson wrote:

Ståle Sæbøe wrote:

It seems to me that if the user absolutely does not want to see web
pages in Verdana, he can easily override it and resize his own font to
suit his needs.

Given a reasonable browser he can, but will he bother?

A common response when a web page intially appears as an unreadable mess
is for the user to ask himself "do I really want to deal with an
organization that has already demonstrated its incompetence?" and
immediately move on to a competitor's web site. Even if he stays and
wastes time fiddling around to make the site usable to him, the user is
likely to be muttering to himself "goddamn incompetent d3ziiner d00dz"
-- which is not a good way to start a relationship.

Dave

If he did not mess with the browser in the first place, chances are he
sees the verdana and is pleased with the nice readable product description.

[Ståle Sæbøe]

Els wrote:

Martin Bialasinski wrote:

It is OK to define Verdana as the font face, as the body font size is
set to 100%. And I have not seen a page doing this. They all scale
Verdana down.

Then you haven't looked at my site. 100% Verdana ;-)

Mine too! :)

[Els]

Ståle Sæbøe wrote:

Els wrote:

Martin Bialasinski wrote:

It is OK to define Verdana as the font face, as the body font size is
set to 100%. And I have not seen a page doing this. They all scale
Verdana down.

Then you haven't looked at my site. 100% Verdana ;-)

Mine too! :)

But where is it?

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Status Quo - Proud Mary

[Blinky the Shark]

Ståle Sæbøe wrote:

Can anyone honestly say they do not have the Verdana font installed?

I do not have Verdana font installed.

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Who has implemented Usenet Solution #45933:
Now killing all posts originating at Google Groups

[Blinky the Shark]

Els wrote:

Martin Bialasinski wrote:

It is OK to define Verdana as the font face, as the body font size is
set to 100%. And I have not seen a page doing this. They all scale
Verdana down.

Then you haven't looked at my site. 100% Verdana ;-)

Looks nice in Bitstream Vera Sans. ;)

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Who has implemented Usenet Solution #45933:
Now killing all posts originating at Google Groups

[Els]

Blinky the Shark wrote:

Ståle Sæbøe wrote:

Can anyone honestly say they do not have the Verdana font installed?

I do not have Verdana font installed.

I don't think anyone has it installed on a Linux machine?
At least it didn't come with the SuSE version I have here.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Status Quo - Roadhouse Medley (Extended Version)

[Els]

Blinky the Shark wrote:

Els wrote:

Martin Bialasinski wrote:

It is OK to define Verdana as the font face, as the body font size is
set to 100%. And I have not seen a page doing this. They all scale
Verdana down.

Then you haven't looked at my site. 100% Verdana ;-)

Looks nice in Bitstream Vera Sans. ;)

Firefox on Linux? ;-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Status Quo - ROADHOUSE - Roadhouse Blues - The Wanderer
- Marguerita Time - Living On An Island - Break The Rules

[C A Upsdell]

Els wrote:

Blinky the Shark wrote:

Ståle Sæbøe wrote:

Can anyone honestly say they do not have the Verdana font installed?

I do not have Verdana font installed.

I don't think anyone has it installed on a Linux machine?
At least it didn't come with the SuSE version I have here.

It does not come with Linux, but it (and the other Microsoft core web
fonts) can be installed, and it is legal to do so. See
http://corefonts.sourceforge.net/

[Blinky the Shark]

Els wrote:

Blinky the Shark wrote:

Ståle Sæbøe wrote:

Can anyone honestly say they do not have the Verdana font installed?

I do not have Verdana font installed.

I don't think anyone has it installed on a Linux machine?
I'm not sure do you think that or not? :)
At least it didn't come with the SuSE version I have here.

I don't know why it couldn't be installed; I've not seen a reason to.

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Who has implemented Usenet Solution #45933:
Now killing all posts originating at Google Groups

[Blinky the Shark]

Els wrote:

Blinky the Shark wrote:

Els wrote:

Martin Bialasinski wrote: It is OK to define Verdana as the font face, as the body font size is
set to 100%. And I have not seen a page doing this. They all scale
Verdana down. Then you haven't looked at my site. 100% Verdana ;-)

Looks nice in Bitstream Vera Sans. ;)

Firefox on Linux? ;-)

Firefox, Konqueror, Opera.

And whatever the hell Dillo (everything is sans) and Links-Graphical
(all serif) are using. :)

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Who has implemented Usenet Solution #45933:
Now killing all posts originating at Google Groups

[Els]

Blinky the Shark wrote:

Els wrote:

Blinky the Shark wrote:

Ståle Sæbøe wrote: Can anyone honestly say they do not have the Verdana font installed? I do not have Verdana font installed.

I don't think anyone has it installed on a Linux machine?

I'm not sure do you think that or not? :)

I don't for about 80%, the other 20% is thinking that about 2.4% of
Linux users might like Verdana enough to install it ;-)
At least it didn't come with the SuSE version I have here.

I don't know why it couldn't be installed; I've not seen a reason to.

Me neither - Bitstream Vera Sans is good enough for me :-)

OT: Assuming the X-face is you - weren't you wearing a hat yesterday?

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Status Quo - ROADHOUSE - Roadhouse Blues - The Wanderer
- Marguerita Time - Living On An Island - Break The Rules