RE: [WSG] font-familly: Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif
Hi Felix, What would you recommend as a Verdana equivalent / replacement font on a Linux machine? It has to be a prevalent font with similar readability. From that I'd perhaps suggest: Font-family: Verdana [PC], [Linux], Helvetica [Mac], sans-serif Or fallback to: Font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif What do you think? mike 2k:)2 marqueeblink e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] site: http://www.webSemantics.co.uk /marquee/blink -Original Message- From: Felix Miata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 06 July 2005 03:04 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] font-familly: Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif Mike Foskett's response to another thread referred to http://www.websemantics.co.uk/tutorials/useful_css_snippets/#leveller that applies the equivalent of the subject rule to body of a stylesheet designed to get rid of most UA default styles. I'm wondering how many people who use this rule have any real clue of its ramifications on non-M$ systems. On M$ systems, Helvetica is usually mapped to Arial. Because Arial is scalable, the difference between the two specified fonts isn't particularly large. On OS X among Macs at least, Helvetica is apparently scalable as well, so again there won't be much apparent difference. However, Helvetica on Linux seems traditionally to be a bitmapped font. This in a not insignificant number of cases will result in rendering results quite a bit different from what was probably the intended result of the fallback font, since most Linux systems are not equipped with Verdana. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/verdvhelve.html provides a look at Helvetica and Verdana together on 2 Mac 4 Linux browsers. http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/Font/font-verd-v-helve.html is the foundation of the screenshots there, though most were taken using a modified version that resorted according to approximate size. I say approximate largely because Helvetica is frequently taller, but normally narrower than Verdana. Since Geneva seems to be preferred to Helvetica on Mac, and Helvetica usually doesn't exist on M$, is there any good reason to ever specify Helvetica as a fallback font, or even as a first choice? -- If you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline them. Proverbs 13:24 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.clearswift.com ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] font-familly: Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif
Bitstream Vera Sans is nice, and free. Anthony -- www.fonant.com - hand-crafted web sites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] font-familly: Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif
Marilyn Langfeld wrote: I add Lucida (forget now if it's Grande or not) which I've heard is prevalent on Unix machines. I don't believe any Lucida proportional font is particularly common on recent Linux distros. I suspect most Lucidas on Linux are either ttf shares from Windows, serif, monospace, and/or old bitmapped fonts. http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-family/sampler-UnixResults.shtml indicates the contrary, but I believe there's something that site cannot account for skewing the results, possibly people responding to the survey as Unix actually running multiboot systems using Windows fonts. On my 3 newest Linux systems, running SuSE 9.2, Fedora Core 3, and Mandrake 2005, and the previous Linux versions they replaced, there were no such Lucidas installed with the OS and its bundled software. The only proportional sans Lucidas on any of those 3 of mine are Windows' Lucida Sans Unicode. OTOH, all of them were equipped with the Bitstream Vera series of fonts out of the box. AFAIK, Lucida Grande is a Mac font never found on any fresh Linux or Windows system. -- If you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline them. Proverbs 13:24 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] font-familly: Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif
Mike Foskett wrote: What would you recommend as a Verdana equivalent / replacement font on a Linux machine? It has to be a prevalent font with similar readability. At the outset, I recommend against ever specifying Verdana, for the reasons expressed at http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html and http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2004/01/avoid-verdana among others. From that I'd perhaps suggest: Font-family: Verdana [PC], [Linux], Helvetica [Mac], sans-serif Or fallback to: Font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif The Bitstream Vera Series, besides being a free download for everyone, seems to have become standard equipment on recent Linux distros. Except for the I, J, i j, most people won't notice any difference between Vera Sans and Verdana. What do you think? I think simply specifying sans-serif or serif or nothing at all is the ultimate solution. Specifying anything else essentially means visitors never see their own preference. If you can't do that, and absolutely must impose your choice, at least be nicer to Mac users by making Geneva the first selection. Deciding on a choice intended for Linux users is really not easy. Here's a set of fonts common to Fedora Core 3 (about 8 months old), SuSE 9.2 (about 9 months old), and Mandrake 2005 (about 3 months old): http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/Font/fonts-face-samplesL.html http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/fonts-face-samplesL-m2005.gif Here are some of those Linux fonts compared to common M$ fonts: http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/Font/fonts-face-samplesLW.html http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/fonts-face-samplesL2-m2005.gif Note the above comparison source has several available alternate stylesheets that do nothing but switch the displayed sizes. http://www.codestyle.org/index.shtml is a good place to see others you don't have installed. -- If you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline them. Proverbs 13:24 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] font-familly: Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif
On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 21:27:15 -0400, Felix Miata wrote: I think simply specifying sans-serif or serif or nothing at all is the ultimate solution. Specifying anything else essentially means visitors never see their own preference. If you can't do that, and absolutely must impose your choice, at least be nicer to Mac users by making Geneva the first selection. A rare variant of IE will display lovely black blocks for all characters if 'serif' alone is specified :( For that reason I now specify font families. warmly, Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - http://elysiansystems.com/ Brisbane, Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
