By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
445,857 Members | 1,813 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 445,857 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

What fonts are equivalent on different platforms?

P: n/a
I'm trying to design my style sheets such that my pages have
similar-looking fonts different platforms (Linux, Mac, Adobe,
X-Windows, MS Windows, etc).

The problem is, a font on one platform might be the same as a font on
another platform, but with different names. I'd like to be able to
specify the font names that are "most equivalent."

For example, "Lucida Console" is a very attractive and readable
monospaced font available in Windows. I now use it instead of
Courier for everything requiring monospaced text. I *think* that
the equivalent Mac font is "Monaco" -- but I'm not sure.

Another example: Arial in Windows looks like Helvetica on the
Mac. There are variants such as Helv and Univers that also look the
same. But what about other popular Windows fonts like Trebuchet
MS and Verdana? Do they have near-identical relatives on other
platforms?

Does anyone know of a resource that shows me what different fonts
look like on different platforms?

I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html
but the page shows them all rendered as Windows fonts. For example,
see Helvetica next to both Arial and Trebuchet; Helvetica looks like
either Arial or Trebuchet, but it can't be both. Even the Mac
screenshots look wrong; the all look like Windows fonts.

-Alex
Jul 12 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
70 Replies


P: n/a
ax**@spamcop.net (axlq) writes:
Does anyone know of a resource that shows me what different fonts
look like on different platforms?

I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html
but the page shows them all rendered as Windows fonts. For example,
see Helvetica next to both Arial and Trebuchet; Helvetica looks like
either Arial or Trebuchet, but it can't be both. Even the Mac
screenshots look wrong; the all look like Windows fonts.
Speaking as a Mac user, I can tell you that page is quite accurate. I
have in fact bookmarked it for future reference.

Microsoft's "core fonts for the web" are also freely available. They're
included with most modern Linux distros, and also downloadable here:

<http://sourceforge.net/projects/font-tool>

If memory serves, that's Andale, Arial, MS Comic Sans, Georgia, Impact,
Times New Roman, Trebuchet, Verdana, and WebDings.

Finally, when you're writing your CSS, be sure to include a list of
alternatives, with the last one being a generic such as "sans-serif".

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Jul 12 '06 #2

P: n/a

axlq wrote:
I'm trying to design my style sheets such that my pages have
similar-looking fonts different platforms (Linux, Mac, Adobe,
X-Windows, MS Windows, etc).
"Similar" is a bad target on the web. Aim for "best" or "most
appropriate" instead.

'Lucida Console' is a fine typeface as an alternative to Courier, so
use it. Only the Windows users (most of them) will see it, but it isn't
harmful to the Macs. If Macs have something similar (maybe Monaco, I
don't know) then use that too. But take a real Mac user's advice here,
not some reformatted screenshot -- things just look different on Macs,
owing to the gamma variations as much as anything.

CSS has good features for selecting fonts by preference and falling
back if they're not there. Make use of them.
font-family: 'lucida console', 'monaco', 'courier', monospace;
is a good setting - it works, it works better in most contexts, and
there isn't anywhere where it really fails.
Avoid Verdana. Verdana is an evil font that lies about its size. As a
result you just can't use it in conjunction with other fonts - you'd
see noticeably bad size inconsistencies if you ever used the CSS
fallback. If you must use Verdana, then use it alone.

As Verdana is also a poor typeface (i.e. the shape, ignoring the size
issues), then there's really no need to use it at all.

Jul 12 '06 #3

P: n/a
In article <m2************@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local>,
Sherm Pendley <sh***@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.localwrote:
>ax**@spamcop.net (axlq) writes:
>I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html
but the page shows them all rendered as Windows fonts. For example,
see Helvetica next to both Arial and Trebuchet; Helvetica looks like
either Arial or Trebuchet, but it can't be both. Even the Mac
screenshots look wrong; the all look like Windows fonts.

Speaking as a Mac user, I can tell you that page is quite accurate. I
have in fact bookmarked it for future reference.
That's good to know, thanks. The innacuracy that glares out at me is
with Helvetica, which apppears in different places, and looks different
in each place.
>Finally, when you're writing your CSS, be sure to include a list of
alternatives, with the last one being a generic such as "sans-serif".
Yes, I do that already. Initially I was using all generic font
names in my pages, but then I decided I liked how Trebuchet MS
made my pages look, and Lucida Console is such a nicer font than
Courier, that I want to be sure that I have a consistent look across
platforms.

-Alex
Jul 12 '06 #4

P: n/a
In article <11**********************@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups .com>,
Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.comwrote:
>CSS has good features for selecting fonts by preference and falling
back if they're not there. Make use of them.
font-family: 'lucida console', 'monaco', 'courier', monospace;
is a good setting - it works, it works better in most contexts, and
there isn't anywhere where it really fails.
I do that but I eliminate 'monaco' -- just having 'monospace' in there
is a sufficient fallback.
>Avoid Verdana. Verdana is an evil font that lies about its size.
I am aware of all the issues with Verdana. In the site I'm
developing, I don't use it at all.
>As Verdana is also a poor typeface (i.e. the shape, ignoring the size
issues), then there's really no need to use it at all.
Verdana actually makes nice headings (h1, h2, etc.), but I no longer
use it for body text because it consumes too much space for its
size.

-A
Jul 12 '06 #5

P: n/a
ax**@spamcop.net (axlq) writes:
In article <m2************@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local>,
Sherm Pendley <sh***@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.localwrote:
>>ax**@spamcop.net (axlq) writes:
>>I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html
but the page shows them all rendered as Windows fonts. For example,
see Helvetica next to both Arial and Trebuchet; Helvetica looks like
either Arial or Trebuchet, but it can't be both. Even the Mac
screenshots look wrong; the all look like Windows fonts.

Speaking as a Mac user, I can tell you that page is quite accurate. I
have in fact bookmarked it for future reference.

That's good to know, thanks. The innacuracy that glares out at me is
with Helvetica, which apppears in different places, and looks different
in each place.
My eyes must be getting old - I can't see much of a difference. Maybe the
second one is a tiny bit bigger.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Jul 12 '06 #6

P: n/a
Sherm Pendley wrote:
Microsoft's "core fonts for the web" are also freely available. They're
included with most modern Linux distros, and also downloadable here:

<http://sourceforge.net/projects/font-tool>

If memory serves, that's Andale, Arial, MS Comic Sans, Georgia, Impact,
Times New Roman, Trebuchet, Verdana, and WebDings.
That doesn't much help, of course, since it's the users, not the page
designer, who need to have these fonts, and they're not going to
download them just because your CSS calls for them--they won't even
*know* that your CSS refers to them.
Jul 12 '06 #7

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.netwrites:
Sherm Pendley wrote:
>Microsoft's "core fonts for the web" are also freely available. They're
included with most modern Linux distros, and also downloadable here:
<http://sourceforge.net/projects/font-tool>
If memory serves, that's Andale, Arial, MS Comic Sans, Georgia,
Impact,
Times New Roman, Trebuchet, Verdana, and WebDings.

That doesn't much help, of course, since it's the users, not the page
designer, who need to have these fonts
That's why I pointed out that most (obviously not all) users do have them,
even a large number of Linux users.

And that's also why I pointed out, in the part of my post that you conveniently
snipped for the sake of making a condescending response, the importance of
adding a generic "family" name like "sans-serif" at the end of the list.
>, and they're not going to
download them just because your CSS calls for them--they won't even
*know* that your CSS refers to them.
Why thank you Captain Obvious.

Do you have anything *useful* to add, or is this just a pissing contest?

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Jul 12 '06 #8

P: n/a
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Sherm Pendley wrote:
Microsoft's "core fonts for the web" are also freely available.
Those old things have a poor character repertoire. Installing them,
on a platform that doesn't have the font names in question, might make
the result worse than what that platform would do if it was left to
use its best fallback font. If you see what I mean.

Installing them on a platform that *does* have a more recent version
of the said fonts will most certainly cause harm. So proceed with
caution.
If memory serves, that's Andale, Arial, MS Comic Sans, Georgia,
Impact, Times New Roman, Trebuchet, Verdana,
I hope no-one's in any doubt here about the difficulties with Verdana.
If font-size-adjust had been developed to the point of usefulness, it
might be possible to work with Verdana, but, the way things are, I'd
definitely counsel against it. sbpoley refers ;-)
and WebDings.
Ouch!!! Don't *ever* do that with HTML. If you're unlucky, it might
appear to do what you want. For many of your users, though, it will
work to the HTML specification, which means it won't do what you want.

See my page
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...ntface-harmful

thanks
Jul 12 '06 #9

P: n/a
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, axlq wrote:
The problem is, a font on one platform might be the same as a font on
another platform, but with different names.

Another example: Arial in Windows looks like Helvetica on the
Mac.

I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html
but the page shows them all rendered as Windows fonts.
You are confused and the author of this page is confused.

First:
Most typefaces exist at least for Macintosh and MS Windows,
often also in two formats (TrueType and PostScript). So there is
Arial for MS Windows, Arial for Macintosh, Helvetica for MS Windows,
Helvetica for Macintosh.

Second:
Arial looks no more like Helvetica than Terence Hill looks like
Franco Nero.

Jul 12 '06 #10

P: n/a
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@physics.gla.ac.ukwrites:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Sherm Pendley wrote:
>Microsoft's "core fonts for the web" are also freely available.

Those old things have a poor character repertoire. Installing them,
on a platform that doesn't have the font names in question, might make
the result worse than what that platform would do if it was left to
use its best fallback font. If you see what I mean.
I do see what you mean, but I wasn't suggesting that users should install
those fonts. I was pointing out that a huge number of users - virtually
all Windows users, all Mac OS X users, and even quite a few Linux users -
will already have them installed.

The wisdom of using specific font names at all is debatable, of course, but
if you choose to do so, it makes sense to choose fonts your users are most
likely to have - with the understanding, of course, that some users will
not have that font, some will override your suggestions, etc.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Jul 12 '06 #11

P: n/a
VK

Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.comwrote:
'Lucida Console' is a fine typeface as an alternative to Courier, so
use it. Only the Windows users (most of them) will see it, but it isn't
harmful to the Macs.
Keeping in mind that
1) Windows does make a difference between generic "mono" and "monotype"
font-family: Foo, Bar, mono will fail to Courier while
font-family: Foo, Bar, monotype will fail to Lucida (if installed)

2) Some browsers (eehk) do parsing only for the first three (3) fonts
in the list, so the regular formula is "MainFont, MostExpectedFallback,
generic-font".

3) Older Macs can get weird if "pushed to the corner" (so no one font
is presented), so the 3rd font should always be a generic one - as
already suggested though, I just wanted to add a technical reason
besides the theoretical ones.
Avoid Verdana. Verdana is an evil font that lies about its size. As a
result you just can't use it in conjunction with other fonts - you'd
see noticeably bad size inconsistencies if you ever used the CSS
fallback. If you must use Verdana, then use it alone.
Verdana and its serif'ed partner Georgia are excellent widely used
fonts. I may presume that their "evelness" in some eyes may be caused
by wrong understanding of screen resolution issues, especially Mac vs.
Windows

Jul 12 '06 #12

P: n/a
Sherm Pendley wrote:
Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.netwrites:
>Sherm Pendley wrote:
>>Microsoft's "core fonts for the web" are also freely available. They're
included with most modern Linux distros, and also downloadable here:
<http://sourceforge.net/projects/font-tool>
If memory serves, that's Andale, Arial, MS Comic Sans, Georgia,
Impact,
Times New Roman, Trebuchet, Verdana, and WebDings.
That doesn't much help, of course, since it's the users, not the page
designer, who need to have these fonts

That's why I pointed out that most (obviously not all) users do have them,
even a large number of Linux users.

And that's also why I pointed out, in the part of my post that you conveniently
snipped for the sake of making a condescending response, the importance of
adding a generic "family" name like "sans-serif" at the end of the list.
I wasn't being condescending, I didn't snip anything out of convenience,
I didn't disagree with anything you said, and I found nearly all of it
relevant and useful. All I was doing was pointing out, if not to you
then to anyone reading what you wrote who might not have grasped it,
that this *one* fact that you mentioned, while useful to those who want
the fonts, is incidental to the question of how to get web pages to
display as desired in users' browsers. Is there something wrong with
trying to clarify something someone else has written if one thinks it
will be helpful?
Jul 12 '06 #13

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.netwrites:
Sherm Pendley wrote:
>Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.netwrites:
>>Sherm Pendley wrote:
Microsoft's "core fonts for the web" are also freely available. They're
included with most modern Linux distros, and also downloadable here:
<http://sourceforge.net/projects/font-tool>
If memory serves, that's Andale, Arial, MS Comic Sans, Georgia,
Impact,
Times New Roman, Trebuchet, Verdana, and WebDings.
That doesn't much help, of course, since it's the users, not the page
designer, who need to have these fonts
That's why I pointed out that most (obviously not all) users do have
them,
even a large number of Linux users.
And that's also why I pointed out, in the part of my post that you
conveniently
snipped for the sake of making a condescending response, the importance of
adding a generic "family" name like "sans-serif" at the end of the list.

I wasn't being condescending, I didn't snip anything out of
convenience, I didn't disagree with anything you said, and I found
nearly all of it relevant and useful.
I'm sorry for overreacting then.
All I was doing was pointing
out, if not to you then to anyone reading what you wrote who might not
have grasped it, that this *one* fact that you mentioned, while useful
to those who want the fonts, is incidental to the question of how to
get web pages to display as desired in users' browsers.
My point wasn't so much that they're easy for users to get and install, as
it was that they're pre-installed on a huge number of systems. Obviously not
every user will have them, but the odds for those fonts being installed are
as good as such things are going to get.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Jul 12 '06 #14

P: n/a
In article <m2************@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local>,
Sherm Pendley <sh***@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.localwrote:
>ax**@spamcop.net (axlq) writes:
>>>I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html
>The innacuracy that glares out at me is with Helvetica, which
apppears in different places, and looks different in each place.

My eyes must be getting old - I can't see much of a difference. Maybe the
second one is a tiny bit bigger.
Look at the lowercase L in 'Helvetica' -- both in the Arial and the
Trebuchet line. One L is a vertical line whereas the other has a
little hook at the bottom. Also compare the sharpness of the point
in the 'v'. Two completely different fonts. The 'c' is more open in
one of them, and the 'a' has a smaller loop. That's why I thought
it was inaccurate. Helvetica is NOT being displayed in at least one
instance. I think the second Helvetica is actually Trebuchet MS.

-A
Jul 12 '06 #15

P: n/a
ax**@spamcop.net (axlq) writes:
In article <m2************@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local>,
Sherm Pendley <sh***@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.localwrote:
>>ax**@spamcop.net (axlq) writes:
>>>>I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html
>>The innacuracy that glares out at me is with Helvetica, which
apppears in different places, and looks different in each place.

My eyes must be getting old - I can't see much of a difference. Maybe the
second one is a tiny bit bigger.

Look at the lowercase L in 'Helvetica' -- both in the Arial and the
Trebuchet line. One L is a vertical line whereas the other has a
little hook at the bottom. Also compare the sharpness of the point
in the 'v'. Two completely different fonts. The 'c' is more open in
one of them, and the 'a' has a smaller loop. That's why I thought
it was inaccurate. Helvetica is NOT being displayed in at least one
instance. I think the second Helvetica is actually Trebuchet MS.
I can see it now. Good eyes!

For myself, I'm beginning to wonder about the wisdom of running a 17" CRT
at 1280x1024. :-\

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Jul 12 '06 #16

P: n/a

"axlq" <ax**@spamcop.netwrote in message
news:e9**********@blue.rahul.net...
I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html
but the page shows them all rendered as Windows fonts. For example,
see Helvetica next to both Arial and Trebuchet; Helvetica looks like
either Arial or Trebuchet, but it can't be both. Even the Mac
screenshots look wrong; the all look like Windows fonts.
The reason you are seeing them all as Windows fonts is that you are using
Windows. Mac users will see them all as Mac fonts. You are simply seeing how
the font-face list displays on your browser. If you didn't have Trebuchet MS
installed you'd see Helvetica. If you had neither Trebuchet MS nor Helvetica
you'd see sans-serif.

There are many similar font families not listed that many users might have.
For example, CorelDRAW comes with a trove of Bitstream fonts. Many of these
are refinements by Hermann Zapf of his own earlier designs. Zapf
Calligraphic, for example, is an analog for Zapf's Palatino. Zapf also
refined Helvetica with a much greater range of font-weights and called it
Swiss 721.

A good listing of font analogs is here:

http://www.fontinfo.net/Font_Analog.html

MS webfonts aren't listed, but if they were, Arial would not rightfully be
an analog for Helvetica as in some respects it is more like an oldie called
News Gothic than Helvetica.

Daibhidh
Jul 12 '06 #17

P: n/a
In article <Pi*************************************@s5b004.rr zn.uni-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop <nh******@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.dewrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, axlq wrote:
You are confused and the author of this page is confused.
I don't think I'm confused at all.
>First:
Most typefaces exist at least for Macintosh and MS Windows,
often also in two formats (TrueType and PostScript). So there is
Arial for MS Windows, Arial for Macintosh, Helvetica for MS Windows,
Helvetica for Macintosh.
That's good to know.
>Second:
Arial looks no more like Helvetica than Terence Hill looks like
Franco Nero.
You're confused. The fact is, simply, that Arial looks a lot more
like Helvetica than any other sans-serif font not called "Helvetica."

Therefore, if I choose Lucida Console for monospaced text, I desire
to specify a fallback font on other platforms that looks more like
Lucida Console than any other monospaced font. On the Mac, that's
apparently Monaco. Similarly if I use Verdana (not that I would) or
Tahoma on Windows, I'd want the Mac to use Geneva and NOT Helvetica
or Lucida Grande. Unfortunately the "equivalent" to Trebuchet MS is
Helvetica on the Mac, which is decidedly not similar in appareance.

My original question concerned the equivalences not just between Mac
and Windows, but also Linux platforms.

However, with another article in this thread recommending to specify
no more than three fonts, with the last one being the default
generic family, I'll make do with specifying a Windows font,
equivalent Mac font, and a generic family.

-A
Jul 12 '06 #18

P: n/a
In article <m2************@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local>,
Sherm Pendley <sh***@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.localwrote:
>I can see it now. Good eyes!
Well, it comes naturally since I began creating custom bitmap
fonts over 15 years ago. A long time ago I wrote an Amiga video
subtitling program called JACOsub, and designed some nice fonts for
it. Ever since then I've been sensitive to the subtle differences
in character glyph appearances between font families.
>For myself, I'm beginning to wonder about the wisdom of running a 17" CRT
at 1280x1024. :-\
Nah. I do. I always use the max resolution possible. Just turn
make sure ClearType is enabled (apparently the Mac has it too) and
everything's fine. ClearType was designed for flat-panel displays
but it works well on most CRTs also.

-A
Jul 12 '06 #19

P: n/a
In article <gV********************@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com >,
Daibhidh <no********@no.wherewrote:
>The reason you are seeing them all as Windows fonts is that you are using
Windows.
No. I'm referring to the bitmap screenshots, which are OS independent.
See the differing appearances of Helvetica on
http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/i...-ClearType.png
for example. I suspect that the Mac which generated that screenshot had
some Microsoft fonts installed.
>A good listing of font analogs is here:

http://www.fontinfo.net/Font_Analog.html

MS webfonts aren't listed, but if they were, Arial would not rightfully be
an analog for Helvetica as in some respects it is more like an oldie called
News Gothic than Helvetica.
That's very helpful. Thanks.

-Alex
Jul 12 '06 #20

P: n/a
On 2006-07-12, Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.comwrote:
>
Avoid Verdana. Verdana is an evil font that lies about its size.
That is not true. Fonts sizes are specified by their vertical
height from the top of the highest ascender to the bottom of the
lowest descender. A font may appear larger if it has a larger "x
height" (the height of a lowercase 'x'), but the difference is not
enough to make the font difficult to read.
As a result you just can't use it in conjunction with other fonts -
you'd see noticeably bad size inconsistencies if you ever used the
CSS fallback.
Only if you hard-code your widths.
If you must use Verdana, then use it alone.
As Verdana is also a poor typeface (i.e. the shape, ignoring the size
issues), then there's really no need to use it at all.
It's not a bad face at all. I prefer Helvetica, but Verdana is also
attractive.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
===== My code in this post, if any, assumes the POSIX locale
===== and is released under the GNU General Public Licence
Jul 12 '06 #21

P: n/a

"axlq" <ax**@spamcop.netwrote in message
news:e9**********@blue.rahul.net...
No. I'm referring to the bitmap screenshots, which are OS independent.
See the differing appearances of Helvetica on
http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/i...-ClearType.png
for example. I suspect that the Mac which generated that screenshot had
some Microsoft fonts installed.
Yes, there is no doubt about it. Look at the Verdana and Tahoma. They are
definitely not Geneva, nor is the Trebuchet Helvetica. That makes the
comparison pretty useless.

Arial and Helvetica fonts appear to have exactly the same size characters.
The Arial terminals (e.g. the ends of the letter C) are not horizontal as
Helvetica's are, the arm of the r is different, and the cap G and R have
very noticable differences. I think the resolution of the screenshots is too
low to see which is which without a cap G or R.

See what I mean here:

http://www.hpaa.com/css1/fontsample.gif

Daibhidh
Jul 12 '06 #22

P: n/a

"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:ga************@xword.teksavvy.com...
On 2006-07-12, Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.comwrote:

Avoid Verdana. Verdana is an evil font that lies about its size.

That is not true. Fonts sizes are specified by their vertical
height from the top of the highest ascender to the bottom of the
lowest descender. A font may appear larger if it has a larger "x
height" (the height of a lowercase 'x'), but the difference is not
enough to make the font difficult to read.
That is also not true. Within a font's bounding box there is usually a bit
of space above and below the tallest ascender and deepest descender. Verdana
has less space above and below its tallest ascender and deepest descender
than Arial does. It also has a taller x-height.

There are other fonts that are big for their size. Helvetica Inserat and
Block Berthold, for example, have a much taller x-height for their size than
Verdana. And there are fonts - oldstyle and formal scripts especially - that
are very small for their size.

Note that in most fonts, accented characters such as Aacute () extend above
the font bounding box. See where the Aacute accent falls when you specify
font-face: Verdana and line-height: 1. It's up among the descenders of the
previous line.

Daibhidh
Jul 12 '06 #23

P: n/a
axlq wrote:
I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html
but the page shows them all rendered as Windows fonts.
That's because for each line of text, the webpage author lists a
"windows" font first, followed by a mac font, followed by the generic.
If you have neither the specified "windows" font nor the specified
"Mac" font installed, you'll see the whole line of text in whatever
you've selected for your browser's default serif or sans-serif or
monospaced font.

General comment: Aaargghhh!

That page represents a great deal of what's wrong. In a page that's
intended to help display web text selection, it does a crappy job.

Because the page uses text instead of graphics, everyone will see the
page differently, depending on what fonts THEY have installed. (Note:
This does NOT depend on their operating system. PC Users CAN have
Geneva, Helvetica, etc., and MAC users can have Tahoma, Verdana, et al)

A good example is the three words "Geneva" in the left-hand column.

I DON'T have Geneva installed, so what I see depends on the sequence
of fonts the author of the page specified for each line.

The first appearance, in the line "Tahoma, Geneva, Sans-Serif" uses
Tahoma to display the line, including the word "Geneva" because what's
specified is "font-family: Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif"

The last one (on MY display) has a spur on the "G" - because what's
specified is "font-family: MS Sans Serif, Geneva, sans-serif" Since I
have MS Sans Serif (as a bitmap font), that's what I see the word
"Geneva" in.

This also explains why so many posters in this thread are saying "I
don't see it that way; or Arial=Helvetica (which it doesn't) or "the
Helveticas look different".

What that page attempts to show is a couple of fonts in each category
that most users might reasonably be expected to have on their system.
It does NOT claim that the selections on each line are in any way
equivalent, just that they're somewhat similar. Text will NOT look
identical, it may not flow the same way, and may not even have the
same characters available!

- Character
Jul 12 '06 #24

P: n/a
"Daibhidh" <no********@no.wherewrote in message
news:_W********************@newssvr13.news.prodigy .com...
font-face: Verdana ...
Arg. I meant: font-family: Verdana. But y'all knew that, I hope!
Jul 12 '06 #25

P: n/a
In article <yY*********************@fe01.news.easynews.com> ,
Character <Ch**@cter.drop.capwrote:
>axlq wrote:
>I did find http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html
but the page shows them all rendered as Windows fonts.

"Mac" font installed, you'll see the whole line of text in whatever
you've selected for your browser's default serif or sans-serif or
monospaced font.

General comment: Aaargghhh!
That was my reaction after I figured out what was going on.

The same is true for the bitmap images of the Mac displays. The Mac
used obviously had some Windows fonts on it.

-A
Jul 13 '06 #26

P: n/a
ax**@spamcop.net (axlq) writes:
The same is true for the bitmap images of the Mac displays. The Mac
used obviously had some Windows fonts on it.
If you're referring to the so-called "web fonts" from MS, those are shipping
with the OS these days - have been since Mac OS X 10.0, IIRC. With the near-
universal adoption of OS X, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a Mac user
who *doesn't* have those fonts.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Jul 13 '06 #27

P: n/a
Andreas Prilop wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, axlq wrote:

Second:
Arial looks no more like Helvetica than Terence Hill looks like
Franco Nero.
Wrong! Arial is a copy of Helvetica see this...
http://central.kaserver5.org/Kasoft/...nts/Arial.html

Yours in joy
Steve
www.fontmadness.com
"In the jungle of the senses"

Jul 13 '06 #28

P: n/a
"Sherm Pendley" <sh***@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.localwrote in message
news:m2************@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local...
ax**@spamcop.net (axlq) writes:

For myself, I'm beginning to wonder about the wisdom of running a 17" CRT
at 1280x1024. :-\
I recommend you change to 1280x960, at least if your monitor is 4:3 in
shape. That way things that are meant to be square will be square (not
rectangluar) and circles will be circles (not ellipses).

Also, contrary to popular belief, I'm sure CRTs do actually have a native
resolution, at least in one direction (some in two directions). Just dig out
a magnifying glass and count the number of phosphorus stripe triplets.
Alternitivley, measure the visible width of your screen, and divide by the
dot pitch.

As for cleartype and its equivalents, if you have stripes of phosphorus
(aperture grille) then you can probably use this, as the mapping should then
be the same as on an LCD. If you don't have stripes, but instead have a kind
of honeycomb grid layout (Shadow mask), then sub-pixel rendering systems
probably won't work so well, but you can always campain to
microsoft/apple/some open source people to get the appropriate adjustments
made to the system.
Jul 13 '06 #29

P: n/a
"Sherm Pendley" <sh***@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.localwrote in message
news:m2************@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local...
ax**@spamcop.net (axlq) writes:
>The same is true for the bitmap images of the Mac displays. The Mac
used obviously had some Windows fonts on it.

If you're referring to the so-called "web fonts" from MS, those are
shipping
with the OS these days - have been since Mac OS X 10.0, IIRC. With the
near-
universal adoption of OS X, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a Mac
user
who *doesn't* have those fonts.
This gives me an idea. How about a page that shows fonts in order of the
market share they reach (based on the OSes or software they come with), and
which can be filtered to show only what the potential designer currently
has. That way I can choose a font that looks nice, and is likely to look the
same to lots of people. I can then also choose a good fallback font so that
almost everyone sees a site nearly as pretty, and a generic so that everyone
can see the site in something at least useable.
Jul 13 '06 #30

P: n/a
In article <m2************@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local>,
Sherm Pendley <sh***@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.localwrote:
ax**@spamcop.net (axlq) writes:
The same is true for the bitmap images of the Mac displays. The Mac
used obviously had some Windows fonts on it.

If you're referring to the so-called "web fonts" from MS, those are shipping
with the OS these days - have been since Mac OS X 10.0, IIRC. With the near-
universal adoption of OS X, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a Mac user
who *doesn't* have those fonts.
Actually, these are included as part of the optional Internet Explorer
package, not as part of the OS proper.

Andre

--
n.b. there are no monotremes in my email address
Jul 13 '06 #31

P: n/a
VK wrote:
Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.comwrote:
>'Lucida Console' is a fine typeface as an alternative to Courier,
so use it. Only the Windows users (most of them) will see it, but
it isn't harmful to the Macs.

Keeping in mind that 1) Windows does make a difference between
generic "mono" and "monotype" font-family: Foo, Bar, mono will fail
to Courier while font-family: Foo, Bar, monotype will fail to Lucida
(if installed)
"Monotype" is the name of a font-foundry; not a font, not a family of
fonts. They invented the world's first mechanical typesetter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotype_Corporation
--
Jack.
Jul 13 '06 #32

P: n/a
axlq wrote:
>
You're confused. The fact is, simply, that Arial looks a lot more
like Helvetica than any other sans-serif font not called "Helvetica."
Arial isn't actually a knock-off of Helvetica (which is an original Gill
design, I think). Arial resembles Helvetica, but was designed as a new
face. There are numerous copies of Helvetica that were specifically
meant to look as close to the copyright original as possible, such as
"Swiss", "Geneva" and so on.

--
Jack.
Jul 13 '06 #33

P: n/a
SteveSomebody wrote:
Andreas Prilop wrote:
>>On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, axlq wrote:

Second:
Arial looks no more like Helvetica than Terence Hill looks like
Franco Nero.


Wrong! Arial is a copy of Helvetica see this...
http://central.kaserver5.org/Kasoft/...nts/Arial.html

That's like saying that if you put the word "Rolex" on a watch then
it's a Rolex. Arial is NOT even a "copy" of Helvetica, it's an
imitation. The original Arial used Helvetica's metrics so that
theoretically it could be used to replace Helvetica and avoid reflow
differences. With the later expanded character sets, even this is no
longer true.

For some detailed differences,see:
http://www.ms-studio.com/articlesarialsid.html

- Character
Jul 13 '06 #34

P: n/a
In article <e9*******************@news.demon.co.uk>,
Jack <mr*********@nospam.jackpot.uk.netwrote:
>Arial isn't actually a knock-off of Helvetica (which is an original
Gill design, I think). Arial resembles Helvetica, but was designed
as a new face.
Yes, I know. Helvetica is a print font. Arial is a video display
font, basically Helvetica optimized for on a pixelized display at
small font sizes. That's why you have a simpler-geometry G, why the
tail of the capital R is less vertical, why the lowercase c is more
open, etc.

-A
Jul 13 '06 #35

P: n/a
axlq wrote:
No. I'm referring to the bitmap screenshots, which are OS independent.
Even these aren't entirely OS independent because of how Macs handle
gamma differenty to PCs. This is very often enough to make otherwise
identical fonts (or even screenshots of fonts) look clearer and
brighter on a Mac.

Jul 13 '06 #36

P: n/a
axlq wrote:
For example, "Lucida Console" is a very attractive and readable
monospaced font available in Windows. I now use it instead of
Courier for everything requiring monospaced text. I *think* that
the equivalent Mac font is "Monaco" -- but I'm not sure.
Here's something that may be of use:

http://buzzword.org.uk/fonts/

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 13 '06 #37

P: n/a
In article <dv************@ophelia.g5n.co.uk>,
Toby Inkster <us**********@tobyinkster.co.ukwrote:
>Here's something that may be of use:

http://buzzword.org.uk/fonts/
Thanks. That is helpful. -A
Jul 13 '06 #38

P: n/a
VK

Jack wrote:
"Monotype" is the name of a font-foundry; not a font, not a family of
fonts. They invented the world's first mechanical typesetter.
Historically must be very true, but practically IE recognises two
families: mono and monotype (Courier-like and Lucida-like
respectively). These two generic families are also build into
Dreamweaver, so this details shows up here and there across the Web.
Say Google News interface seems to be made on Dreamweaver (surprise!
:-) where the font-family is simply monotype (w/o particular fonts), so
I saw everything in Lucida instead on Courier which I prefer - until I
set CSS override. I'm ready to accept that it's a mistake made either
by Dreamweaver or by IE years ago and now too late to fix for legacy
issues.

Jul 14 '06 #39

P: n/a
VK wrote:
Jack wrote:
>"Monotype" is the name of a font-foundry; not a font, not a family
of fonts. They invented the world's first mechanical typesetter.

Historically must be very true, but practically IE recognises two
families: mono and monotype (Courier-like and Lucida-like
respectively).
CSS2 specification:
"The following generic families are defined: 'serif', 'sans-serif',
'cursive', 'fantasy', and 'monospace'."

No mention of "mono" or "monotype". In my experience, IE recognises
"monospace". A quick test reveals that neither "mono" nor "monotype"
results in a monospaced font. So whatever you mean by "recognises", you
surely can't mean that IE treats these as references to a generic
monospaced font.

<html>
<body>
<p style="font-family: monospace">This should be monospaced.</p>
<p style="font-family: monotype">This shouldn't be monospaced, and it
isn't.</p>
<p style="font-family: mono">This shouldn't be monospaced, and it isn't.</p>
</body>
</html>

These two generic families are also build into
Dreamweaver, so this details shows up here and there across the Web.
Say Google News interface seems to be made on Dreamweaver (surprise!
:-) where the font-family is simply monotype (w/o particular fonts),
By "where", do you mean Dreamweaver, or Google News interface? The css
for Google News seems to use the generic family "monospace", but there's
no trace of either "mono" or "monotype". As far as Dreamweaver is
concerned, I couldn't possibly say; I use Notepad.

As usual, your post is somewhere between terminally confusing and
downright misleading.

--
Jack.
Jul 14 '06 #40

P: n/a
VK

Jack wrote:
By "where", do you mean Dreamweaver, or Google News interface? The css
for Google News seems to use the generic family "monospace", but there's
no trace of either "mono" or "monotype". As far as Dreamweaver is
concerned, I couldn't possibly say; I use Notepad.

As usual, your post is somewhere between terminally confusing and
downright misleading.
I'm letting people to point to someones rude mistakes: what sweeter
than that? And what a great stress releaver! :-))

:-|

"monotype" is indeed my invention due to a Freudistic *typ*o. Of course
"monospace".

"mono" is presented in older Dreamweaver (at least on my v2.1) but it
is difficult to notice its bogus nature because it's pre-coded in the
default font list
"Courier New", Courier, mono
so it almost never reaches the last option on UA. It is now confirmed
(I presume) to be a mistake made by former Macromedia. Whoever uses
Dreamweaver should check if their version contains this typo in the
font list and edit it.

The nature of troubles I described (and thanks to your tests and
criticism) is in different treatment for monospace by IE and other
browsers.

IE uses for monospace Lucida wherever installed, even if Courier New is
also presented.

Firefox uses for monospace Courier New / Courier, even if Lusida is
also installed.

Demo for Windows platforms (Lusida set must be presented):

<html>
<head>
<title>Test</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

<style type="text/css">
..mn {
font-family: Foobar, Eggog, monospace;
}
</style>

</head>

<body>
<p class="mn">abcdefgh</p>
</body>
</html>

Jul 14 '06 #41

P: n/a
On 14 Jul 2006, VK wrote:
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
Specify the encoding (charset) in the HTTP header, which has
precedence anyway.
http://www.w3.org/International/O-HTTP-charset.html
If you use a <meta charsetersatz, then you *rely* on your
HTTP header being defective.

*Anything* called <meta http-equivis only a surrogate.

Jul 14 '06 #42

P: n/a
VK wrote:
IE uses for monospace Lucida wherever installed, even if Courier New is
also presented.
Firefox uses for monospace Courier New / Courier, even if Lusida [sic] is
also installed.
Although what you state may be the defaults for these two products,
both can be USER defined, and therefore cannot be relied upon.

Firefox: Tools / Options / General / Fonts & Colors

IE: A couple of places - Tools / Interent Options Fonts /
(Mine says Courier New, and I don't remember changing it, because I
don't normall use IE at all)

- Character

Jul 14 '06 #43

P: n/a
VK wrote:
Jack wrote:
>By "where", do you mean Dreamweaver, or Google News interface? The
css for Google News seems to use the generic family "monospace",
but there's no trace of either "mono" or "monotype". As far as
Dreamweaver is concerned, I couldn't possibly say; I use Notepad.

As usual, your post is somewhere between terminally confusing and
downright misleading.

I'm letting people to point to someones rude mistakes: what sweeter
than that? And what a great stress releaver! :-))
I'm not trying to relieve my own stress, and I don't mean to be rude.

People come to this group for information, and if the information
provided is inaccurate then people will be misled. You have posted
misleading information repeatedly, and been pulled up on it each time.
Why don't you simply learn to check your facts before posting?

No doubt you have plenty of experience, at least within certain domains;
maybe you could help people - but that won't be possible until you get
your facts straight.

You must have realised by now that people are looking out for
inaccuracies in your posts. It's not personal; it's just that in an
information-based newsgroup like this, inaccuracies *ought* to be
corrected. You just seem to provide an awful lot of inaccuracies.

--
Jack.
Jul 14 '06 #44

P: n/a
axlq wrote:
For example, "Lucida Console" is a very attractive and readable
monospaced font available in Windows. I now use it instead of
Courier for everything requiring monospaced text. I *think* that
the equivalent Mac font is "Monaco" -- but I'm not sure.
Close enough. Few people are going to put a Mac right next
to a PC just to criticize your web pages.

I almost always says "Lucida Grande", "Lucida Sans Unicode",
Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif

Almost everyone has one of the first two.

--
Wes Groleau

After the christening of his baby brother in church, Jason sobbed
all the way home in the back seat of the car. His father asked him
three times what was wrong. Finally, the boy replied, "That preacher
said he wanted us brought up in a Christian home, and I wanted to
stay with you guys."
Jul 15 '06 #45

P: n/a
Also worth noting that on Mac, if the font in use doesn't have a
particular glyph, the system is pretty clever about fetching that
glyph from another very similar font.

--
Wes Groleau

It seems a pity that psychology should have
destroyed all our knowledge of human nature.
-- G. K. Chesterton
Jul 15 '06 #46

P: n/a
axlq wrote:
You're confused. The fact is, simply, that Arial looks a lot more
like Helvetica than any other sans-serif font not called "Helvetica."
Wrong -- Swiss 721 is almost indistinguishable from Helvetica.
Unfortunately the "equivalent" to Trebuchet MS is Helvetica on the Mac,
which is decidedly not similar in appareance.
Why use Helvetica? Trebuchet MS is included in Mac OS X!

see: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301332
My original question concerned the equivalences not just between Mac
and Windows, but also Linux platforms.
Each Linux distribution includes a different set of fonts, but the Nimbus
fonts are fairly common, as they're included with Ghostscript; and the
Bitstream Vera fonts are also common, as they're included with GNOME.
Also, many Linux users will have installed Microsoft's Core Fonts.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 15 '06 #47

P: n/a
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 03:51:10 GMT, Wes Groleau
<gr**********@freeshell.orgwrote:
>Close enough. Few people are going to put a Mac right next
to a PC just to criticize your web pages.
The trouble is that often the one person who does do this is the project
manager, and even they don't realise it's an irrelevance.
Jul 15 '06 #48

P: n/a
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, Wes Groleau wrote:
Also worth noting that on Mac, if the font in use doesn't have a
^^^^^^
particular glyph, the system is pretty clever about fetching that
^^^^^^
glyph from another very similar font.
It is the browser, not the operating system. And since Internet
Explorer isn't used any longer on Mac OS X ......

--
Netscape 3.04 does everything I need, and it's utterly reliable.
Why should I switch? Peter T. Daniels 2005 in <news:sci.lang>

Jul 17 '06 #49

P: n/a
Andreas Prilop wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, Wes Groleau wrote:
>Also worth noting that on Mac, if the font in use doesn't have a
^^^^^^
>particular glyph, the system is pretty clever about fetching that
^^^^^^
>glyph from another very similar font.

It is the browser, not the operating system. And since Internet
Explorer isn't used any longer on Mac OS X ......
Partly true. The browser can decline to take advantage of
features in the system. Actually, though, they're not in
the _operating_ system but in the graphics/text rendering
system. In any case, I was surprised one day to find that
certain Chinese glyphs were not present in my favorite font.
EVERY browser I had tried showed them--and I did not detect
the font switch.

And Internet Explorer IS (reluctantly) used on my OS X.

- there are still websites that refuse to cooperate
with some browsers (my credit union claims its
online services work only with Safari and Internet
Explorer--but at least on my system, they DON'T
work with Safari.)

- when I am working on _my_ websites, I sometimes
need to see what they look like on the <censored>
thing that half the audience is using.

--
Wes Groleau

"There ain't nothin' in this world that's worth being a snot over."
-- Larry Wall
Jul 18 '06 #50

70 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.