By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
429,615 Members | 1,961 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 429,615 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Problem with arial and curly quotes

P: n/a
I tried changing font-family from helvetica to arial and discovered
that I loose typographic quotes, etc. (for example, if I have “
in a page, the double opening quotation mark is not curly).

The reason for trying arial was that I understood it was easier
reading, although I still find helvetica easier (what is the
consensus, if any, on this issue?).

I suspect that arial uses Microsoft's 1252 code page and so does not
make “ typographic, but straight.

--

Haines Brown, KB1GRM

Nov 2 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
23 Replies


P: n/a
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Haines Brown wrote:
I tried changing font-family from helvetica to arial and discovered
that I loose typographic quotes, etc. (for example, if I have “
in a page, the double opening quotation mark is not curly).
It only *seems* so when the font size is too small.
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nht...mp/quotes.html

Nov 2 '06 #2

P: n/a
Haines Brown wrote:
>
The reason for trying arial was that I understood it was easier
reading,
That's highly subjective. Easier than what?

--
Berg
Nov 2 '06 #3

P: n/a
VK

Haines Brown wrote:
I tried changing font-family from helvetica to arial and discovered
that I loose typographic quotes, etc. (for example, if I have “
in a page, the double opening quotation mark is not curly).
"curly quotes" historically have a number of numeric representations,
see for instance
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Quotation_marks_in_English>.

This way never use "numeric entities" for them but only HTML entities
&lsquo; and &rsquo; (single) and &ldquo; &rdquo; (double)

In XSLT templates define them in internal DTD subset by their Unicode
values
The reason for trying arial was that I understood it was easier
reading, although I still find helvetica easier (what is the
consensus, if any, on this issue?).
You must be confusing something. Helvetica is a traditional fall-back
font for non-Windows platforms:
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
or (to be politically correct :-)
font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;

On Windows platforms Helvetica is not presented unless additionally
installed.

Nov 2 '06 #4

P: n/a
On 2 Nov 2006, VK wrote:
Helvetica is a traditional fall-back
font for non-Windows platforms:
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
or (to be politically correct :-)
font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
This has nothing to do with "political correctness". Since Arial
is installed on almost every computer (comes even with Solaris 9),
it is pointless to put Arial in the first place.

Nov 2 '06 #5

P: n/a
VK
Since Arial
is installed on almost every computer (comes even with Solaris 9),
it is pointless to put Arial in the first place.
IMHO that is a reverse logic: the point of providing a list of fonts is
to keep the page uniform across the maximum of environments. Exactly
because Arial is the most expected, it should go first. On older Mac's
w/o IE installed and older Ux'es we'll try to use something we know to
be visually close to Arial. If still no luck then the system default
whatever it will be.

Nov 2 '06 #6

P: n/a
On 2 Nov 2006, VK wrote:
IMHO that is a reverse logic: the point of providing a list of fonts is
to keep the page uniform across the maximum of environments.
No, why? If you write a novel, how could you assure that every
reader has the same imaginations? You cannot. That's the difference
between a novel and a movie.

If you need something "uniform across the maximum of environments",
then use PDF.
Exactly because Arial is the most expected, it should go first.
If you put Arial first, then you don't need any other typeface
thereafter.

Nov 2 '06 #7

P: n/a
On 2006/11/02 14:16 (GMT) Haines Brown apparently typed:
I tried changing font-family from helvetica to arial ...
The reason for trying arial was that I understood it was easier
reading, although I still find helvetica easier...
Helvetica is traditionally a bitmap font on Linux, and thus makes a poor
first choice if any of your visitors use any but the newest Linux
distros, which generally alias Helvetica to a scalable font. If you're
running a recent Linux, odds are you're not seeing Helvetica when you
think you should be.
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Font/f...ca.html#bitmap
--
"Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven."
Matthew 5:12 NIV

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

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
Nov 2 '06 #8

P: n/a
VK
No, why? If you write a novel, how could you assure that every
reader has the same imaginations? You cannot. That's the difference
between a novel and a movie.
You have lost me here... Are you trying to say that a web-page layout
is a novel for one reader (aka author)? Like
font-family: "The Only Font Matching The Concept Of This Site", "I
don't care If Anyone Else Has It", sans-serif;
?

As runtime font installation is still supported by IE only, there is no
much sense to search for some very particular font on your own machine.
You have to think what font or at least what typeface would be the most
expected web-wise. "Most expected" - not "guaranteed to be presented".
If you need something "uniform across the maximum of environments",
then use PDF.
A .png image map would be more reliable IMHO (no Adove Viewer
required). Sometimes I feel like jump on the idea.
:-)
Exactly because Arial is the most expected, it should go first.
If you put Arial first, then you don't need any other typeface
thereafter.
Did you inspect all machines in my target auditory? Arial is a
commercial font, not a public domain one, however widely used it is.
Unless you have any of Microsoft products installed or some of printer
packages (purchased with the printer), or unless you separately paid
for this font and installed it: unless that how and where did you get
it?

Nov 2 '06 #9

P: n/a
Felix Miata <Ug********************@dev.nulwrites:
On 2006/11/02 14:16 (GMT) Haines Brown apparently typed:
>I tried changing font-family from helvetica to arial ...
The reason for trying arial was that I understood it was easier
reading, although I still find helvetica easier...

Helvetica is traditionally a bitmap font on Linux, and thus makes a poor
first choice if any of your visitors use any but the newest Linux
distros, which generally alias Helvetica to a scalable font. If you're
running a recent Linux, odds are you're not seeing Helvetica when you
think you should be.
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Font/f...ca.html#bitmap
Your citation was very interesting. So when I say I find helvetica
easy reading, what I'm really seeing is Nimbus on my Linux system.

Someone suggested that the typographic quotes only look straight, and
indeed that is so. Arial on my system rather compresses things so that
the curly quote looks close to a simple vertical line.

I had heard that arial was easier for reading from the monitor compared
to, say, helvetica and sans-serif. I became concerned because when I
changed some text from serif (Times?) to sans-serif (Arial), I found
it difficult to read, but when I choose helvetica (nimbus), it seemed
much easier.

--

Haines Brown, KB1GRM

Nov 2 '06 #10

P: n/a
Scripsit VK:
"curly quotes" historically have a number of numeric representations,
Huh?
see for instance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotati...rks_in_English.
Why would anyone look at wikipedia in matters that so often get confused
even in experts' presentations and minds?

As long as the double quotation marks of English have existed in HTML, they
have always had the same code numbers. You can write these numbers in
decimal or in hexadecimal if you use character references, but that's it.
This way never use "numeric entities" for them but only HTML entities
&lsquo; and &rsquo; (single) and &ldquo; &rdquo; (double)
Nonsense. Character references (which is what you mean by "numeric
entities") work just as fine. The entity references that you mention have
been _defined_ in terms of character references, e.g.

<!ENTITY ldquo CDATA "“">

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

Nov 2 '06 #11

P: n/a
Scripsit Andreas Prilop:
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Haines Brown wrote:
>I tried changing font-family from helvetica to arial and discovered
that I loose typographic quotes, etc. (for example, if I have “
in a page, the double opening quotation mark is not curly).

It only *seems* so when the font size is too small.
For some value of "too", yes. I wouldn't consider a font size of 12 points
as "too small" in any absolute meaning, as long as it a user choice. Most
people can read Arial in that size rather comfortably, at least on paper.

Anyway, it is a problem - in the design of the Arial font. It is quite
possible to design a decent-looking sans-serif font with curly quotes, but
admittedly the quotes may then look a bit too prominent (see e.g. Trebuchet
MS text in 12pt).

The curly quotes in 12pt Arial are still different from the Ascii quotation
mark, but they don't look typographically right.

Somewhat surprisingly, Verdana contains curly quotes in 10pt and 12pt
versions, but from 14pt upwards, they are straight (not curved), though
slanted, so that the right double quote looks much like the inch sign (i.e.,
the double prime). The same applies to Tahoma.

The morale? Is there any morale? If the typographic quality of quotes is
important, don't use common sans-serif fonts like Arial or Tahoma (not to
mention Verdana). As a compromise between typographic quality and
readability on screen, consider using Georgia as the primary font
suggestion - but beware that Georgia has lowercase, varying-width digits, so
it's not very suitable for text containing a lot of numeric information.

(I've even seen a printed publication that tried to explain the use of
quotation marks in different languages but got many basics wrong _and_ used
large-size Verdana for text samples, completely missing the point even in
those issues that were right at the character level.)

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

Nov 2 '06 #12

P: n/a
Haines Brown wrote:
>
I had heard that arial was easier for reading from the monitor compared
to, say, helvetica and sans-serif.
This is confusing. Arial *is* a sans serif font. It is the font
typically used as sans-serif for most Windows users.

FWIW, my chosen browser default sans-serif font is neither Arial nor
Helvetica, and I find it far more comfortable for reading on screen than
either of those other fonts. It may not be very common, though.

Why don't you just use the generic sans-serif, and let the user's
preference kick in? On Windows, most will get Arial. On Linux, most will
probably get Helvetica or its alias. Mac will get whatever Mac gets by
default. Everybody wins, no?

--
Berg
Nov 2 '06 #13

P: n/a
In article
<Pi*************************************@s5b004.rr zn.uni-hannover
..de>,
Andreas Prilop <nh******@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.dewrote:
No, why? If you write a novel, how could you assure that every
reader has the same imaginations? You cannot. That's the difference
between a novel and a movie.
It is often the difference between a good movie and a bad one.

--
dorayme
Nov 2 '06 #14

P: n/a
Bergamot <be******@visi.comwrote:
>Why don't you just use the generic sans-serif, and let the user's
preference kick in? On Windows, most will get Arial. On Linux, most will
probably get Helvetica or its alias. Mac will get whatever Mac gets by
default. Everybody wins, no?
Fully respecting the user's settings can only be achieved by not
specifying a font family at all.

--
Spartanicus
Nov 2 '06 #15

P: n/a
Spartanicus wrote:
>
Fully respecting the user's settings can only be achieved by not
specifying a font family at all.
But there is nothing wrong with suggesting sans-serif over serif for
stylistic reasons. Often one suits the overall page style better than
the other.

--
Berg
Nov 3 '06 #16

P: n/a
Bergamot <be******@visi.comwrote:
>Fully respecting the user's settings can only be achieved by not
specifying a font family at all.

But there is nothing wrong with suggesting sans-serif over serif for
stylistic reasons. Often one suits the overall page style better than
the other.
If you are going to use that as the measure then there is nothing wrong
with specifying a specific font either.

If as you previously proposed the aim is letting the user's settings
prevail, then not specifying a font family is the way to achieve that.

--
Spartanicus
Nov 3 '06 #17

P: n/a
In article <v1********************************@4ax.com>,
Spartanicus <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
Bergamot <be******@visi.comwrote:
Fully respecting the user's settings can only be achieved by not
specifying a font family at all.
But there is nothing wrong with suggesting sans-serif over serif for
stylistic reasons. Often one suits the overall page style better than
the other.

If you are going to use that as the measure then there is nothing wrong
with specifying a specific font either.

If as you previously proposed the aim is letting the user's settings
prevail, then not specifying a font family is the way to achieve that.
Only if the aim is something so rigid that it does not admit of
degrees.

--
dorayme
Nov 3 '06 #18

P: n/a
Spartanicus wrote:
Bergamot <be******@visi.comwrote:
>>But there is nothing wrong with suggesting sans-serif over serif for
stylistic reasons. Often one suits the overall page style better than
the other.

If you are going to use that as the measure then there is nothing wrong
with specifying a specific font either.
As dorayme said, there's usually no need to be so rigid about it.

--
Berg
Nov 3 '06 #19

P: n/a
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
The curly quotes in 12pt Arial [...]
This is meaningless. You can only refer to a certain glyph image
with the height given in *pixels*.
Somewhat surprisingly, Verdana contains curly quotes in 10pt and 12pt
versions, but from 14pt upwards, they are straight (not curved),
Verdana is an outline font (or rather a family of four fonts).
There is no "10 pt version" and not "12 pt version". What you see
on the screen (or even in print) is the result of the font's hinting
and the TrueType rastering engine. It may look different on
different operating systems.

Nov 3 '06 #20

P: n/a
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:16:08 GMT, Haines Brown
<br****@teufel.hartford-hwp.comwrote:
>The reason for trying arial was that I understood it was easier
reading, although I still find helvetica easier (what is the
consensus, if any, on this issue?).
I'm not sure about consensus, but this is interesting:
http://www.ms-studio.com/articles.html
--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Nov 3 '06 #21

P: n/a
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Felix Miata wrote:
Helvetica is traditionally a bitmap font on Linux,
Helvetica is much older than Linux. It is built into every
PostScript printer since ~1985 and has been available as an
outline font for Macintosh for almost the same period.
Everyone with a PostScript printer driver has access to
Helvetica. If you need an outline font for MS Windows
for on-screen use, you can also buy it from Adobe.

Your statement about Helvetica and "bitmap fonts" is just nonsense.

Nov 3 '06 #22

P: n/a
In message <MJ*******************@reader1.news.jippii.net>, Thu, 2 Nov
2006 23:50:18, Jukka K. Korpela <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrites
>The morale? Is there any morale?
morale != moral

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk / ??*********@physics.org
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/- FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "" (SoRFC1036)
Nov 3 '06 #23

P: n/a
On 2006/11/03 17:54 (GMT+0100) Andreas Prilop apparently typed:
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Felix Miata wrote:
>Helvetica is traditionally a bitmap font on Linux,
Helvetica is much older than Linux.
IIRC, several decades older. So what?
It is built into every
PostScript printer since ~1985 and has been available as an
outline font for Macintosh for almost the same period.
Everyone with a PostScript printer driver has access to
Helvetica.
That's nice. How do such facts relate to (screen media) stylesheets used
by web pages?
If you need an outline font for MS Windows
for on-screen use, you can also buy it from Adobe.
That's generally pointless, as the free scalable clone of it, Arial,
comes with every version of windoz since more than 10 years ago.
Your statement about Helvetica and "bitmap fonts" is just nonsense.
You mean you think the one you quoted is just nonsense? Are you aware of
what newsgroup this thread lives in? It's about stylesheets, and thus
about what people using web browsers see in their viewports as a result
of authors specifying Helvetica in their stylesheets.

Those using older versions of Linux to view web pages will usually see a
bitmap font from the Adobe foundry named Helvetica when CSS specifies
Helvetica. It's available in a limited number of sizes. For example, on
SUSE 10.0 at 96 DPI, the available sizes are 6pt, 8pt, 9pt, 11pt, 13pt,
14pt, 15pt, 18pt, 19pt & 26pt, while at 72 DPI, it's available in 9pt,
11pt, 12pt, 14pt, 16pt, 19pt, 20pt, 23pt, 27pt, 28pt & 38pt sizes.

Those using newer Linux versions equipped with fontconfig usually will
not see Helvetica when Helvetica is found in CSS. Every Linux so
equipped that I've seen maps Helvetica to a scalable font that resembles
Helvetica, commonly Nimbus Sans L or Luxi Sans, that isn't limited in
available sizes.
--
"Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven."
Matthew 5:12 NIV

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

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
Nov 4 '06 #24

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.