469,342 Members | 6,660 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,342 developers. It's quick & easy.

Verdana font. Why not?

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 16214
Els wrote:
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?


Not me.

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

Jul 21 '05 #51
Els
Blinky the Shark wrote:
OT: Assuming the X-face is you - weren't you wearing a hat yesterday?


Not me.


<g>

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Status Quo - Roadhouse Medley (Roadhouse Mix)
Jul 21 '05 #52
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.

For those that do not know: 1pt = 1/72 inch. 10pt means 10px in a 72dpi
display and around 20px in a 144dpi display.
Jul 21 '05 #53
Els wrote:

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


No, I see 100% Arial. Which is ugly, IMO.

I sometimes consider uninstalling Arial because I'm sick of looking at
it on web pages.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 21 '05 #54
Spartanicus wrote:
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.

Huh? a is 20% smaller than b. Both a and b is reduced 50%. a is still
20% smaller than b. Where does the factor of 2 come in?
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.

Your arguments are getting sloppy. The whole point of the compromise is
to please MOST of the visitors instead of catering to the minority. Redo
your logic.
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.

I agree, and therefore such pages should be as readable as possible for
all potential visitors including options for printable pages. They
should be audio renderable as well as serve the information to deaf
people. A very nice exception to the rule.
Jul 21 '05 #55
Els
kchayka wrote:
Els wrote:

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


No, I see 100% Arial. Which is ugly, IMO.

I sometimes consider uninstalling Arial because I'm sick of looking at
it on web pages.


If you find Arial so ugly, why don't you install Verdana? Or set a
user stylesheet with the font you like?

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Status Quo - Spinning Wheel Blues
Jul 21 '05 #56
Els wrote:
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?

Oh :)

I guess its not really a site yet :)
http://80.202.168.171/sandbox/
Jul 21 '05 #57
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 ;-)


Els, you forgot to set the background of the header to fixed :)
Jul 21 '05 #58
Stan Brown wrote:
"Ståle Sæbøe" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
I am a bit curious about this.

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

I read that before I started this thread. That guy only has one
argument. It is incredible how he manages to fill 2 pages to explain it.
I repeated it in my original post.
Jul 21 '05 #59
Els
Ståle Sæbøe wrote:
Els, you forgot to set the background of the header to fixed :)


Wrong assumption ;-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Status Quo - The Anniversary Waltz - Part Two
Jul 21 '05 #60
Els wrote:
Wrong assumption ;-)

Ops :)
Jul 21 '05 #61
Els
Ståle Sæbøe wrote:
Then you haven't looked at my site. 100% Verdana ;-)

Mine too! :)


But where is it?

Oh :)

I guess its not really a site yet :)
http://80.202.168.171/sandbox/


Yup, I call it a site :-)
It has real columns, and a horizontal scrollbar because of a (too)
wide textarea near the bottom ;-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Status Quo - The Anniversary Waltz - Part Two
Jul 21 '05 #62
Els wrote:
Blinky the Shark wrote:
OT: Assuming the X-face is you - weren't you wearing a hat yesterday?
Not me.

<g>


No, really...

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

Jul 21 '05 #63
Martin! 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.

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


Okay, I'm totally missing something here. Every visual browser I'm
familiar with has a choice under the 'view' option to increase the size
of the text by various percentages. Being old as well as slow, I often
read pages at 120-200 percent, depending on font size and background.

I'm certainly not advocating unreadable fonts (although Ghu knows there
are enough unreadable pages out there), but it seems to me that once
again the user triumphs.

What am I missing?

--RC
Jul 21 '05 #64
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:18:14 +0100, Ståle Sæbøe <ot*****@tdz.no> wrote:
Dave Anderson wrote: [...]
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?"...

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.


<http://www.css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html>

Go figure...

--
Rex
Jul 21 '05 #65
Rick Cook <rc****@TAKEOUT.mindspring.com> wrote:
Okay, I'm totally missing something here. Every visual browser I'm
familiar with has a choice under the 'view' option to increase the size
of the text by various percentages. Being old as well as slow, I often
read pages at 120-200 percent, depending on font size and background.

I'm certainly not advocating unreadable fonts (although Ghu knows there
are enough unreadable pages out there), but it seems to me that once
again the user triumphs.

What am I missing?


Not much from the sound of it. If only all users were as well informed
about their browsers capabilities as you were...

But if you use Windows IE and if the page author has specified the
font size in px or pt then you can not resize the font without first
going into the settings and disabling _all_ author specified font
sizing. That's why using pt or px is a bad idea.

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/>
Jul 21 '05 #66
That's why using pt or px is a bad idea.


idealistic and thus unrealistic
Jul 21 '05 #67
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?ISO-8859-
1?Q?St=E5le_S=E6b=F8e?= 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.


Then you know how it worked just fine without ever setting font size. Of
course, you needed a machine that had text size big enough for you to
read, but after that, it was OK.
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.
Propably you have enough clue to actually set the ppi setting of you OS.
Or you just never actually used very high ppi screen. Huge monitor vs
small one is not issue. Neither is it new lap top vs desktop. It is the
resolution that is used. The high ppi displays are still somewhat rare.
For those that do not know: 1pt = 1/72 inch. 10pt means 10px in a 72dpi
display and around 20px in a 144dpi display.


But, usually setting is 96ppi in both displays, so you get something like
12px in both systems. Or someone has set his ppi incorrectly in order to
see pt units in size they like (in windows, this is most natural, as the
ppi setting is not supposed to be correct...)

And, if you have 21" monitor just because you have vision problems, 10pt
is still 10 * 1/72 inch, which is 3.5mm (assuming you would set ppi
correctly). That is not too big. Of course anyone actually using it for
that reason won't use ppi setting that would get right results, but
somthing that gives them better results. Which kind of proves that pt
unit is no good.

And setting that setting wrong is not option for people that actually
need correct display of pt units, like graphical designers. Who are, BTW,
most likely to use expensive high ppi screens...

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Jul 21 '05 #68
Ståle Sæbøe wrote:
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.

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.


*If* he has Verdana available -- but we already know that some people
don't, and so are likely to be presented with an unreadable mess.
Deliberately designing a site so that it doesn't work for some people
based on an unknowable-in-advance characteristic of their computer is
very much like a brick-and-mortar store employing someone to bar the
door to anyone who has green eyes -- which I suspect we'd all agree
would be a really stupid idea.

"If he did not mess with the browser in the first place" implies that
you believe that the user should not set browser defaults that he finds
comfortable because this might interfere with what some designer wants.
Is this really what you intended to say?

Dave

Jul 21 '05 #69
"Ståle Sæbøe" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Stan Brown wrote:
"Ståle Sæbøe" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
I am a bit curious about this.

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

I read that before I started this thread. That guy only has one
argument. It is incredible how he manages to fill 2 pages to explain it.
I repeated it in my original post.


And yet you learned nothing from it.

Pity.

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Jul 21 '05 #70
"Ståle Sæbøe" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
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.


Translation: You don't care if you screw things up for the people
who actually took the time to set their preferences in the browser
anyway.

"Mess with the browser"? -- You [expletivce deleted], whose
browser do you think it is, anyway?

And why do you post a question here if you have no intention of
listening to the answers?

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Jul 21 '05 #71
"Martin!" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
That's why using pt or px is a bad idea.


idealistic and thus unrealistic


"Unrealistic", in your lexicon, apparently discounts the hundreds
of thousands of web pages that use neither px nor pt for text
sizes.

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Jul 21 '05 #72
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. Huh? a is 20% smaller than b. Both a and b is reduced 50%. a is still
20% smaller than b. Where does the factor of 2 come in?
Client reduced + Author reduced = 2 * reduced.
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.

Your arguments are getting sloppy. The whole point of the compromise is
to please MOST of the visitors instead of catering to the minority. Redo
your logic.


I summed up your position accurately, you are a fool.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 21 '05 #73
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Els wrote:
Ståle Sæbøe wrote:
>Then you haven't looked at my site. 100% Verdana ;-)

Mine too! :)
http://80.202.168.171/sandbox/


Els http://locusmeus.com/

Both sites immidiately make me use alt + s, s to get Arial instead
Verdana...

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Jul 21 '05 #74
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Els wrote:
kchayka wrote:
Els wrote:

Then you haven't looked at my site. 100% Verdana ;-)
No, I see 100% Arial. Which is ugly, IMO.

I sometimes consider uninstalling Arial because I'm sick of looking at
it on web pages.


If you find Arial so ugly, why don't you install Verdana?


Because it is even uglier?
Or set a user stylesheet with the font you like?


First I would need to find font that I like.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Jul 21 '05 #75
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?ISO-8859-
1?Q?St=E5le_S=E6b=F8e?= wrote:
Stan Brown wrote:
"Ståle Sæbøe" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
I am a bit curious about this.

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

I read that before I started this thread. That guy only has one
argument. It is incredible how he manages to fill 2 pages to explain it.


Because it is obviously hard to understand
I repeated it in my original post.


Yes, so you misunderstood it.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Jul 21 '05 #76
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Martin! wrote:
That's why using pt or px is a bad idea.


idealistic and thus unrealistic


Is there any problem in using the default font size? No, so why is it
unrealistic?

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Jul 21 '05 #77
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Martin! wrote:
That's why using pt or px is a bad idea.

idealistic and thus unrealistic


Neither. This is a strange reality you live in, in which (apparently)
hardly any reader can use the font size which they chose or which
their vendor chose for them, that they have to wait for *you* to come
along and correct the problem for them.

Perhaps you'd care to share with us why you, specially *you*, should
be privy to this secret of your readers' ideal font size - that is
somehow denied to the actual readers, and to those who design the
software which they use? Fascinating.
Jul 21 '05 #78
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Els wrote:
kchayka wrote:
> I sometimes consider uninstalling Arial because I'm sick of looking at
> it on web pages.


If you find Arial so ugly, why don't you install Verdana?


Because it is even uglier?


LOL. I think Arial might be uglier than Verdana, but they're close.
Or set a user stylesheet with the font you like?


First I would need to find font that I like.


Finally, someone who understands. :)

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.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 21 '05 #79
Ståle Sæbøe wrote:

Your arguments are getting sloppy. The whole point of the compromise is
to please MOST of the visitors instead of catering to the minority. Redo
your logic.


The whole point is actually to meet the needs of your client. Shutting
the door on potential customers does not meet the needs of your client.
After all, minorities are potential customers too.
Jul 21 '05 #80
Rick Cook wrote:
Okay, I'm totally missing something here. Every visual browser I'm
familiar with has a choice under the 'view' option to increase the size
of the text by various percentages. Being old as well as slow, I often
read pages at 120-200 percent, depending on font size and background.

I'm certainly not advocating unreadable fonts (although Ghu knows there
are enough unreadable pages out there), but it seems to me that once
again the user triumphs.

What am I missing?


What you may be missing is that, if the font size is specified in
absolute units, like pixels, IE's View TextSize function does not change
the text size. A browser like Firefox can, but there are still a few
people out there who use IE.

Jul 21 '05 #81
Martin! wrote:
That's why using pt or px is a bad idea.


idealistic and thus unrealistic


How? I have never had a problem avoiding absolute units, and many other
designers have likewise never had such a problem.

Jul 21 '05 #82
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Els wrote:
Ståle Sæbøe wrote:

>>Then you haven't looked at my site. 100% Verdana ;-)
>
>Mine too! :)
http://80.202.168.171/sandbox/

Els http://locusmeus.com/

Both sites immidiately make me use alt + s, s to get Arial instead
Verdana...

Which is your prerogative. And does that make the sites look ok to you?
Jul 21 '05 #83
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?ISO-8859-
1?Q?St=E5le_S=E6b=F8e?= wrote:
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Els wrote:
>>>Then you haven't looked at my site. 100% Verdana ;-)
http://80.202.168.171/sandbox/
Els http://locusmeus.com/

Both sites immidiately make me use alt + s, s to get Arial instead
Verdana...

Which is your prerogative. And does that make the sites look ok to you?


No, since my normal text size is best for TNR. I just didn't have
shortcut key for forcing TNR. It makes them look better...

If you had not selected any font, I would get optimal font on your site,
without needing to force anything. The problem with forcing your
preferences is that it is next to impossible force body type, and leave
everything else alone. In other words, you can't force your preferences
without causeing harm on properly done sites.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Jul 21 '05 #84
Els
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?ISO-8859-
1?Q?St=E5le_S=E6b=F8e?= wrote:
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Els wrote:
>>>>Then you haven't looked at my site. 100% Verdana ;-)
>http://80.202.168.171/sandbox/ Els http://locusmeus.com/

Both sites immidiately make me use alt + s, s to get Arial instead
Verdana...

Which is your prerogative. And does that make the sites look ok to you?


No, since my normal text size is best for TNR. I just didn't have
shortcut key for forcing TNR. It makes them look better...

If you had not selected any font, I would get optimal font on your site,
without needing to force anything. The problem with forcing your
preferences is that it is next to impossible force body type, and leave
everything else alone. In other words, you can't force your preferences
without causeing harm on properly done sites.


Just to make sure I understand you correctly, Lauri: "properly done
sites" = "no font set at all" ?

If so, I disagree. I bet the most proper way to do a site for you is
to set no colour either, nor add any images that don't really mean
anything, nor make the menu stick to the left or right, and don't make
the footer's font size smaller than the body text.

How am I doing in my assumption?

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Jul 21 '05 #85
"Martin!" <ma**********@home.nl.knip.knip.knip> 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?

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/>
Jul 21 '05 #86
Tim
Lauri Raittila wrote:
First I would need to find font that I like.

kchayka <us****@c-net.us> posted:
Finally, someone who understands. :)

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.


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.

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. It also kills the background and foreground colours, and adjusts the
line spacing. 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.

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
Inter-line spacing
Colours

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.

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.
Jul 21 '05 #87
Steve Pugh wrote:
"Martin!" <ma**********@home.nl.knip.knip.knip> 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?

Steve


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

not in the sense that it is impossible, which i am sure it often is.
Jul 21 '05 #88
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Martin! wrote:
Steve Pugh wrote:
"Martin!" <ma**********@home.nl.knip.knip.knip> wrote:

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

idealistic and thus unrealistic
in the sense that not everybody is willing to spend time and money to
tweak their code into a completely sizeable site.
It is unrealistic and idealistic to think that you can make a layout that
works if you use fixed fontsize.
not in the sense that it is impossible, which i am sure it often is.


Never seen layout, that couldn't be done better and easier using relative
font size. Have seen thousands of pages that fall apart when wrong
fontsize is used. (mine is, BTW, browser default... Tells something about
how fragile fixed sizing is - when I used smaller font, I saw more pages
that broke down (on low ppi), same when using bigger than default (on
high ppi)

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Jul 21 '05 #89
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Martin! wrote:
in the sense that not everybody is willing to spend time and money
to tweak their code into a completely sizeable site.


Leaving it at the user's chosen default size is still an effective
option. So why "tweak" (your term, not mine) it to -any- size, if
you can't spare the time to understand how do it properly?

Jul 21 '05 #90
"Martin!" <ma**********@home.nl.knip.knip.knip> wrote:
Steve Pugh wrote:
"Martin!" <ma**********@home.nl.knip.knip.knip> 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 tweaking is needed?
You start with a blank screen and type
font-size: 100%; instead of font-size: 16px;

Even if retrofitting accessibility to a badly put together site
(generally a bad idea - better to start again with a new design which
has accessibility built in) changing the font sizes to something more
accessible, even allowing for the issues of inheritence, only takes
half an hour or so.

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/>
Jul 21 '05 #91
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Els wrote:
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?ISO-8859-
1?Q?St=E5le_S=E6b=F8e?= wrote:
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Els wrote:
>>>>>Then you haven't looked at my site. 100% Verdana ;-)
>>http://80.202.168.171/sandbox/
Els http://locusmeus.com/

Both sites immidiately make me use alt + s, s to get Arial instead
Verdana...

Which is your prerogative. And does that make the sites look ok to you?


No, since my normal text size is best for TNR. I just didn't have
shortcut key for forcing TNR. It makes them look better...

If you had not selected any font, I would get optimal font on your site,
without needing to force anything. The problem with forcing your
preferences is that it is next to impossible force body type, and leave
everything else alone. In other words, you can't force your preferences
without causeing harm on properly done sites.


Just to make sure I understand you correctly, Lauri: "properly done
sites" = "no font set at all" ?


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.)

About Verdana, well, I would not use it for anything. But for heading it
is OK for accessibility and usability viewpoints.
If so, I disagree. I bet the most proper way to do a site for you is
to set no colour either,
No. I would only suggest that do not set body text background to white
(if you specify it, use suitable off-white light colour), and text color
should be very near to black. I have yet to see easily readable site with
inverse colors, but it might be possible as well, but it is more likely
conflict with userstylesheet.

To other elements in page, use whatever colors you like.

Links should blue if possible, while visited should be that purple. But
link colors are not that important
nor add any images that don't really mean anything,
Yes, but I would only count fully transparent images in that category.
There is n+1 pages still out there using good old 1px transparent
images...
nor make the menu stick to the left or right,
Yes, it is better, if you can make it move around by size of window, or
not include it at all. But it is not usually too bad thing, *if* it does
not confuse user. The content of menu is more important than where it is
located in page.
and don't make the footer's font size smaller than the body text.
Rather, don't put any irrelevant information to footer (like legal
statements, copyright, etc. first you might need if you are based in US
or other country with idiotic justice system...)

I would assume that sooner or later soe nice US citizen makes end of
smaller size footer tradition by going to court and saying he was not
able to see it...
How am I doing in my assumption?


Near, but you would end up with boring site...

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Jul 21 '05 #92
Els
Lauri Raittila wrote:
In other words, you can't force your preferences
without causeing harm on properly done sites.

[snip assumption of Lauri's preferences for site styles]
How am I doing in my assumption?


Near, but you would end up with boring site...


LOL

At least one thing we agree on <g>

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Jul 21 '05 #93
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?ISO-8859-
1?Q?St=E5le_S=E6b=F8e?= wrote:
Stan Brown wrote:
"Ståle Sæbøe" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
I am a bit curious about this.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html


I read that before I started this thread. That guy only has one
argument. It is incredible how he manages to fill 2 pages to explain it.

Because it is obviously hard to understand

I repeated it in my original post.

Yes, so you misunderstood it.

I don't think so. I acknowledge the problems with using a large font and
then reducing it in size, but that is slightly apart from the issue. To
the original question "Why not?" you say you think it is ugly. Well ...
what can I say? You win :)

Should a designer set a font at all? Well in some cases she has no
choice in the matter. Many of the debatants here seem to argue from the
standpoint that all pages must contain a lot of readable text, but a lot
of home pages is just a showroom/window to the world. They want their
proprietary colors, logos and font faces to blend into the design as
part of their branding strategy.

So: If the brunt of the message of the page is within long articles or
essays (etc). accessability becomes aplha omega and allowing the user
maximum freedom of choice is probably the best way to go. In addition,
if you must maintain accessability to users with various types and
degrees of disability the designer is left with precious little choice
with regards to "railroading" browsers which could lead to a "boring"
design.

In any case, I still do not see anything wrong with the Verdana font. I
observe that many debatants claim that designers "tend" to use it in a
way that makes pages undreadable unless you view them with default
settings, but that is a discussion about implementation pitfalls (which
I will be more careful to observe in the future).

I will also pay closer attention to the target group. Apparantly,
Verdana is installed on all windows systems, but some other OS must do
it manually (mostly Linux variants?) It seems this is true for a lot of
fonts though, so the second you set the font-family property, you have
already lost 1% of your potential customers/visitors.
Jul 21 '05 #94
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?ISO-8859-
1?Q?St=E5le_S=E6b=F8e?= wrote:
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?ISO-8859-
1?Q?St=E5le_S=E6b=F8e?= wrote:
Stan Brown wrote:

"Ståle Sæbøe" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
>I am a bit curious about this.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

I read that before I started this thread. That guy only has one
argument. It is incredible how he manages to fill 2 pages to explain it.
Because it is obviously hard to understand
I repeated it in my original post.


Yes, so you misunderstood it.

I don't think so. I acknowledge the problems with using a large font and
then reducing it in size, but that is slightly apart from the issue.


Well, if your choise causes problems for large part of users, I think it
is quite essential. And I think you missed the point that Verdana size
issue only applies to normal text
To the original question "Why not?" you say you think it is ugly. Well ...
what can I say? You win :)
That is other argument. Which is good for why not use it on headings
either...
Should a designer set a font at all? Well in some cases she has no
choice in the matter.
I wouldn't be so sure. Body font is hardly ever desided on basis of
graphic design, if you have more than few lines of text, not even on
adverticements.
Many of the debatants here seem to argue from the
standpoint that all pages must contain a lot of readable text, but a lot
of home pages is just a showroom/window to the world. They want their
proprietary colors, logos and font faces to blend into the design as
part of their branding strategy.
Those are irrelevant to the issue.
So: If the brunt of the message of the page is within long articles or
essays (etc). accessability becomes aplha omega and allowing the user
maximum freedom of choice is probably the best way to go. In addition,
if you must maintain accessability to users with various types and
degrees of disability the designer is left with precious little choice
with regards to "railroading" browsers which could lead to a "boring"
design.
There is about 5 fonts to choose from, if you want consistant style. Your
font will not be orginal anyway, no matter which font you use. If you
want to make difference, use 20-40 different fonts that have aspect
ration between TNR and Arial, and you might get some results that differ
from other pages. (sometimes - after those handful of well supported
fonts, there is almost none that are even 50% likely)
In any case, I still do not see anything wrong with the Verdana font. I
observe that many debatants claim that designers "tend" to use it in a
way that makes pages undreadable unless you view them with default
settings, but that is a discussion about implementation pitfalls (which
I will be more careful to observe in the future).
There is no way to use Verdana right for normal text in HTML. To get
arguments why it is not good for anything else either, google comp.fonts
I will also pay closer attention to the target group. Apparantly,
Verdana is installed on all windows systems, but some other OS must do
it manually (mostly Linux variants?) It seems this is true for a lot of
fonts though, so the second you set the font-family property, you have
already lost 1% of your potential customers/visitors.


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
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Jul 21 '05 #95
"Martin!" wrote:
Steve Pugh wrote:
That's why using pt or px is a bad idea.

idealistic and thus unrealistic


Unrealistic is expecting your visitors to be able to read text you size
in px. You have no idea how big a px is on my systems.
--
"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you."
Matthew 7:12 NIV

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

Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jul 21 '05 #96
Ståle Sæb*e 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


Wrong. The problem is that font-family: verdana is almost universally
accompanied by one of the following font-size specifications: 76%,
small, 90%, 80%, x-small or their em equivalents, or worse, in some px
or pt size smaller than the standard browser default. When this happens,
which is nearly always, and when the user has specified Verdana as his
own default, the page text is guaranteed to be smaller than the user's
preferred size, and probably too small for reading comfort.
--
"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you."
Matthew 7:12 NIV

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

Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jul 21 '05 #97
Steve Pugh wrote:
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.
Some common ones arranged by size:
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/f...mplesExtS.html
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...


I think "often" is a gross understatement:
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/shame.html
--
"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you."
Matthew 7:12 NIV

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

Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jul 21 '05 #98
"Martin!" wrote:
could be, if not, you can ignore my reply.
still i would be interested to 'see' an example of your test.


Using only a slight bit of imagination you could understand the problem
by looking at http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/allreschooser.html and
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/images...v1600x1200.png

The only way to fully understand is to duplicate the described
configuration.
--
"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you."
Matthew 7:12 NIV

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

Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jul 21 '05 #99
Spartanicus 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?
--
"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you."
Matthew 7:12 NIV

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

Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jul 21 '05 #100

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.