RE: [WSG] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Mugur Padurean wrote: It may be useful for some of you guys to know that on some major Linux distros ( Fedora, Debian, Slackware) in all browsers available through the KDE or Gnome fonts appear to be rendered slightly bigger than on WIN. Up to 5 % bigger By default, X on my SUSE machine sets itself to 120dpi (like large fonts in Windows) You also get a minimum font-size of 10px or 12px (can't remember which) in Konqueror ... always something to remember if you deign to cater to Linux users - which you should! Chris DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents. Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998 Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Roger that, command. Over :)) Felix Miata wrote: I think if you digest http://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=5869 and http://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=6153 you'll find represented the behavior you've described. Linux simply does not have the same fonts as doze, unless you've imported doze fonts, or installed the mswbfnts package. Until and unless you do, you cannot expect the same fonts to render the same, since they aren't really the same. In the many tests I have done comparing doze to Linux, the exact same ttf fonts when not anti-aliased do produce the same letterforms at the same size on both platforms. What I do notice though is the leading usually is ever so slightly different. One other possibility is you're comparing fonts sized in pt. This is invalid unless you're using the exact same DPI on all systems compared. Matching DPI with doze is not something you get by accident. Doze defaults to 96 DPI, and often is 120 on laptops. Linux is almost never either 96 or 120 unless explicitly set to be that way. More commonly it is 75, 90, or 100 DPI. http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/PointsDemo.html can be used for pt size comparisons if you have matched DPI. If you are trying to run xft/gtk2 Gecko builds on a system lacking xft/gtk2 support you also can expect bad behavior. ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Hey The MS true type fonts core fonts are available for any system (that supports TTF) to download via http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=19259 I'm sure they are available elsewhere but I pick most of my eyecandy stuff for KDE from here. If you specify sans-serif as the fallback font, the users' sans-serif setting will take hold.If it's not the font you expect - well don't worry about it because that's what the user or their admin chose and you have no control over it. How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Relinquish Control http://adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000501.php ;) Cheers James
Re: [WSG] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Mugur Padurean wrote: As an added note to Linux fonts: It may be useful for some of you guys to know that on some major Linux distros ( Fedora, Debian, Slackware) in all browsers available through the KDE or Gnome fonts appear to be rendered slightly bigger than on WIN. Up to 5 % bigger. Even if you import fonts from Windows ( Arial for example ) they will appear bigger. I haven't tested for the exact percentages but still ... I've checked this with two identical PC side by side and it's there. Anyone else seen this ? I'm really curious if any of you have more info on this. I think if you digest http://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=5869 and http://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=6153 you'll find represented the behavior you've described. Linux simply does not have the same fonts as doze, unless you've imported doze fonts, or installed the mswbfnts package. Until and unless you do, you cannot expect the same fonts to render the same, since they aren't really the same. In the many tests I have done comparing doze to Linux, the exact same ttf fonts when not anti-aliased do produce the same letterforms at the same size on both platforms. What I do notice though is the leading usually is ever so slightly different. One other possibility is you're comparing fonts sized in pt. This is invalid unless you're using the exact same DPI on all systems compared. Matching DPI with doze is not something you get by accident. Doze defaults to 96 DPI, and often is 120 on laptops. Linux is almost never either 96 or 120 unless explicitly set to be that way. More commonly it is 75, 90, or 100 DPI. http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/PointsDemo.html can be used for pt size comparisons if you have matched DPI. If you are trying to run xft/gtk2 Gecko builds on a system lacking xft/gtk2 support you also can expect bad behavior. -- Be quick to listen, slow to speak.James 1:19 NIV 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
James Bennett wrote: On 10/3/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most Linux systems have neither Verdana nor Arial installed, at least not by default. True, but these days nearly every Linux distribution ships the free Bitstream Vera font set, which includes a sans-serif with metrics similar to Verdana. Also, the core web fonts are typically available as an easily-installed package for most distributions, which will provide Verdana and other fonts. I've found that the following works well for providing compatibility to Linux users (and as a full-time Linux user for a number of years, I can personally attest to its effectiveness): Verdana, Bitstream Vera Sans, Lucida Sans, sans-serif I would assume that the most linux users either 1) have 'core web fonts' installed or 2) don't mind having web pages that look really weird. Browsing the web without that package will get you lots of issues all over the place (even with it I stumble across websites every once in a while with unreadibly small font-sizes. That said, I have Verdana on my Linux box (and it looks way better than Poley's windows(?) version does). The other important thing to note is that the vast majority of users either can't scale fonts because they're using a broken coughIE/cough browser or because the don't know how (or even that it was an option). It's very important to have readable defaults. ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Because it's an ugly bastard of Helvetica? I'm no typographist but my sister absolutely hates that font. However, Windows donsn't really have any nice looking fonts anyways. T. R. Valentine wrote: On 04/10/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMO arial isn't so hot for the web anyway. OK, I'd like to hear some opinions. A lot of the pages I produce need, for technical reasons, a Unicode font (especially the 0370–03FF, 0400–04FF, 0500–052F, 1F00–1FFF, and 2000–206F ranges). I find 'Arial Unicode MS' very handy for this. Plus, it is a sans-serif style which is generally regarded as superior to a serif font for screen reading. A typical CSS entry for me is: font-family:'Arial Unicode MS','Everson Mono Unicode', 'Palatino Linotype',Code2000,'TITUS Cyberbit Basic','Athena Roman', Athena; (I know I don't have a generic, but that's because there really isn't a suitable generic.) So my questions are: what is wrong with Arial (Arial Unicode MS in particular)? are there better font alternatives? (I generally provide links for downloading these fonts because there is not a reliable means of providing fonts to web users.) I would very much appreciate suggestions. ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
I don't remember the site I read, but there wasn't a fallback for Arial! It had percentages of fonts by user for Windows, Mac, and Linux. You could fallback to Geneva for Mac, but there wasn't anything for Linux. IMO arial isn't so hot for the web anyway. On 10/4/05, Samuel Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So if the Linux fallback for Verdana is Bitstream Vera Sans, what's theLinux fallback for Arial?Samuel RichardsonBuddy Quaid wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Most Linux systems have neither Verdananor Arial installed, at least not by default.True, but these days nearly every Linux distribution ships the free Bitstream Vera font set, which includes a sans-serif with metricssimilar to Verdana. Also, the core web fonts are typically availableas an easily-installed package for most distributions, which will provide Verdana and other fonts. I've found that the following workswell for providing compatibility to Linux users (and as a full-timeLinux user for a number of years, I can personally attest to its effectiveness):Verdana, Bitstream Vera Sans, Lucida Sans, sans-serif--May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. -- George Carlin**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**-- - C Montoya rdpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.com
RE: [WSG] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
From: Samuel Richardson So if the Linux fallback for Verdana is Bitstream Vera Sans, what's the Linux fallback for Arial? Agfa Monotype had this to say in a press release about Red Hat licencing their fonts: Albany, Cumberland and Thorndale are from Agfa Monotype's library of hand-tuned Enhanced Screen Quality fonts, designed for optimal legibility regardless of output destination, such as low-resolution inkjet printers or tiny cell phone screens. The fonts are also metrically equivalent to Arial, Courier and Times New Roman, core fonts of the Microsoft Windows operating system. URL for press release: http://news.agfa.com/corporate/news.nsf/0/3A202FF9EA54CEBAC1256E270058A BBC?opendocument -- Peter Williams ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
From: Samuel Richardson So if the Linux fallback for Verdana is Bitstream Vera Sans, what's the Linux fallback for Arial? Another answer could be Helvetica, I think that Arial is actually a copy of Helvetica (a much older typeface). -- Peter Williams ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Right, but what I was saying was that none of those fonts are common on Linux machines. So if you make a font family that starts with Arial, be prepared to have 3 or 4 fallbacks for Linux. On 10/4/05, Peter Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Samuel Richardson So if the Linux fallback for Verdana is Bitstream Vera Sans, what's the Linux fallback for Arial?Another answer could be Helvetica, I think that Arial isactually a copy of Helvetica (a much older typeface). --Peter Williams**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help** -- - C Montoyardpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.com
Re: [WSG] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
On 10/4/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've installed a lot of Linux distros, and surprisingly few install Vera by default, though they usually include them on the installation media. Weird. I've not had a Linux install anytime in the past couple of years that didn't install the Bitstream fonts. I have been sticking mostly to mainstream distributions, though (see below for a question about that). What I hope you meant to suggest was 'Verdana, Bitstream Vera Sans, Luxi Sans, sans-serif'. I've really only seen Luxi Sans on Red Hat-derived distributions; Debian-based systems often don't include it (for example, the laptop I'm typing on, running Ubuntu, doesn't have Luxi Sans). Nimbus Sans is a bit more common. It wouldn't hurt to include 'lucida sans unicode' just to be safe from the old W9x lucida sans italic, unless you expect normal line-heights, which you won't get from lucida sans unicode on doze unless you explicitly set line-height for it. Good point. As for falling back to Lucida Sans, I do it because it's a known quantity; it's universal enough that it usually avoids the whims of the system-default sans-serif and thus provides a last-resort consistency, but at the same time its ugliness is usually avoided by the fact that careful font selection will almost always match something else first. FWIW, FC4 apparently ships without Helvetica, something I've never noticed on any Linux before. Ubuntu Hoary (haven't yet tried the Breezy preview release) ships Helmet, which is a reasonable clone, but not Helvetica, and I believe Fedora does the same. While I'm not certain exactly why that was changed, I've always assumed that it has something to do with licensing of the Helvetica name. Out of curiosity, which distributions do you feel constitute a solid baseline for Linux compatibility? Just as IE/Win, Firefox, Safari and Opera represent a good test base for cross-browser compatibility, I've been working with Fedora, Ubuntu, SuSE and Mandrake as a solid base for cross-distribution compatibility. -- May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. -- George Carlin ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
As an added note to Linux fonts: It may be useful for some of you guys to know that on some major Linux distros ( Fedora, Debian, Slackware) in all browsers available through the KDE or Gnome fonts appear to be rendered slightly bigger than on WIN. Up to 5 % bigger. Even if you import fonts from Windows ( Arial for example ) they will appear bigger. I haven't tested for the exact percentages but still ... I've checked this with two identical PC side by side and it's there. Anyone else seen this ? I'm really curious if any of you have more info on this. ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
On 04/10/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMO arial isn't so hot for the web anyway. OK, I'd like to hear some opinions. A lot of the pages I produce need, for technical reasons, a Unicode font (especially the 0370–03FF, 0400–04FF, 0500–052F, 1F00–1FFF, and 2000–206F ranges). I find 'Arial Unicode MS' very handy for this. Plus, it is a sans-serif style which is generally regarded as superior to a serif font for screen reading. A typical CSS entry for me is: font-family:'Arial Unicode MS','Everson Mono Unicode', 'Palatino Linotype',Code2000,'TITUS Cyberbit Basic','Athena Roman', Athena; (I know I don't have a generic, but that's because there really isn't a suitable generic.) So my questions are: what is wrong with Arial (Arial Unicode MS in particular)? are there better font alternatives? (I generally provide links for downloading these fonts because there is not a reliable means of providing fonts to web users.) I would very much appreciate suggestions. -- T. R. Valentine Use a decent browser: Safari, Firefox, Mozilla, Opera (Avoid IE like the plague it is) N�ŠÇ.²È¨žX¬µú+†Ûiÿü nËZ�Ö«vÈ+¢êh®Òyèm¶ŸÿÁæ쵩Ýj·l‚º.¦Šàþf¢—ø.‰×¥Šw¬qùŸ¢»(™èbžÛ(žš,¶)උazX¬¶¶)à…éi
Re: [WSG] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
James Bennett wrote: On 10/4/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've installed a lot of Linux distros, and surprisingly few install Vera by default, though they usually include them on the installation media. Weird. I've not had a Linux install anytime in the past couple of years that didn't install the Bitstream fonts. I have been sticking mostly to mainstream distributions, though (see below for a question about that). I didn't really word my statement correctly. What I actually meant was I install Linux fresh often, not that I install many different distros, and also that upon installation completion, that I often have to go find and install Vera. What I hope you meant to suggest was 'Verdana, Bitstream Vera Sans, Luxi Sans, sans-serif'. I've really only seen Luxi Sans on Red Hat-derived distributions; Debian-based systems often don't include it (for example, the laptop I'm typing on, running Ubuntu, doesn't have Luxi Sans). Nimbus Sans is a bit more common. On all the current stuff here that I just checked, only Knoppix 3.9 (debian) does not have Luxi Sans, though it does have Nimbus Sans L. Linspire 5 (debian) has the former, but not the latter. The rest (SuSE 10.0, Mandriva 2006, Fedora Core 4) have both Luxi Sans and Nimbus Sans L. My disk with Xandros 2 died, preventing checking my only other nearly current Debian. It wouldn't hurt to include 'lucida sans unicode' just to be safe from the old W9x lucida sans italic, unless you expect normal line-heights, which you won't get from lucida sans unicode on doze unless you explicitly set line-height for it. Good point. As for falling back to Lucida Sans, I do it because it's a known quantity; it's universal enough that it usually avoids the whims of the system-default sans-serif and thus provides a last-resort consistency, but at the same time its ugliness is usually avoided by the fact that careful font selection will almost always match something else first. On all the above systems I just checked, 'lucida sans' brings up the old doze italic font on those systems I've done a doze font migration, and the sans-serif browser default on the others; IOW, 5 distros without Lucida Sans. OTOH, specifying 'lucida sans unicode' does return the correct font on those on which I've doze font migrated. http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/Font/fonts-W98SE.html Out of curiosity, which distributions do you feel constitute a solid baseline for Linux compatibility? Just as IE/Win, Firefox, Safari and Opera represent a good test base for cross-browser compatibility, I've been working with Fedora, Ubuntu, SuSE and Mandrake as a solid base for cross-distribution compatibility. I'd use the page hit ranking and summaries on http://distrowatch.com/ as guides if I was starting from scratch. Any 3 from the top ten should probably provide representative results. SuSE I initially picked because it is one of the IBM supported distros, and fellow OS/2 users seemed to like it. Fedora I have as the natural evolution from RedHat (also supported by IBM). Mandriva I have as an early branch evolution from RedHat. Those 3, plus Knoppix on CD, are all I keep up to date. Of others I've tried, only Xandros impressed me, but as all debians I've tried have done (including Knoppix), it irritates me in various ways that cause all except Knoppix to be little more than curiosities. -- Be quick to listen, slow to speak.James 1:19 NIV 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Hi there, This may help with your font compatibility problem. http://www.visibone.com/font/FontResults.html Cheers, Peter Johnson --- Peter Johnson Macromedia Flash Developer Missing Link NZ Ltd. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
From: T. R. Valentine On 04/10/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMO arial isn't so hot for the web anyway. So my questions are: what is wrong with Arial (Arial Unicode MS in particular)? are there better font alternatives? Typographers say it is badly hinted. My take on that is that it has a poorer appearance than some other typefaces from which it was derived. I believe the differences are subtle and probably not visible in screen use. -- Peter Williams ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Hi Peter, Thanks for posting this to the list, I'm sure it will be interesting to many of us on list... Can you tell us when you conducted the research, the duration of the study and how you collected the information? All the best, lisa -Original Message- From: Peter Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 5 October 2005 9:20 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point. Hi there, This may help with your font compatibility problem. http://www.visibone.com/font/FontResults.html Cheers, Peter Johnson --- Peter Johnson Macromedia Flash Developer Missing Link NZ Ltd. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Hi Lisa, The survey was not conducted by my company, it was done by Visibone who I imagine will probably make a whole lot of money off this post, but nevertheless. Check out their website http://www.visibone.com, they sell a whole lot of visual aids for web dev people. The Tests thats they use are available at http://www.visibone.com/font/ Thanks for your reply, Peter Johnson --- Peter Johnson Macromedia Flash Developer Missing Link NZ Ltd. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Hi Lisa, Peter, On 05-10-2005at 09:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herrod, Lisa) wrote: Thanks for posting this to the list, I'm sure it will be interesting to many of us on list... -Original Message- From: Peter Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This may help with your font compatibility problem. http://www.visibone.com/font/FontResults.html You might also want to look at the following: http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-family/ It's less 'complete' in that it doesn't include all the many really obscure fonts of the visibone survey, but I personally find it better organised. Both this and the visibone compliment each other, but are gathered differently... codestyle requires a manual completion of a 'checklist' type of form, while the visibone survey is automatically gathered via javascript, which incidentally caused a Firefox hang on MacOSX 10.3.9 here... YMMV Cheers Rob -- Rob Schumann Webspace Works (RS-Tech Consulting Co., Ltd.) http://www.webspaceworks.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 **
[WSG] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Hi all, I have been reading few articles (like http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html) about avoiding Verdana font. But I cant get the whole point in this issue. I mean: I understand that if you use a tiny font-size (like 10px or 0.64em or 64% applied to the body) you will get into problems with all fallback fonts (especialy with Times New Roman). But if you specify a higher font-size value, like 0.8em or 80%, you get a nice Verdana size and if the browser falls back to a font like Times New Roman, it is still very readable. So, please, can someone point me what am I missing about avoiding Verdana? Thanks in advance and excuse my english Julián Landerreche ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Julián Landerreche said: I have been reading few articles (like http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html) about avoiding Verdana font. But I cant get the whole point in this issue. So, please, can someone point me what am I missing about avoiding Verdana? Honestly, I pretty much refuse to take heed of such advice when the guy's website is so very, well, ugly! He's saying - don't use Verdana because: It's slighly larger in size to others fonts at the same size - eg Arial. Thus a user without Verdana installed (not extremely likely currently) may be viewing the text in another font, and that font may look too small on the screen. H. This would be why we use ems or percentages. So the user can resize. The article reads like a beat-up on Verdana for fairly obscure reasons. I'd ignore it, for what that's worth. Mike ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Julián Landerreche said: So, please, can someone point me what am I missing about avoiding Verdana? Verdana has a larger x-height than most fonts and thus *appears* larger than other fonts at the same specified size. My guess is it is roughly one or two pixels or a point size larger than, say arial or helvetica (or similar). In other words for another font to look like Verdana @ 11px you would need to specify a size of 13px. Problems occur for users who don't have verdana installed because sites designed with verdana font-sizes become microscopic and unreadable. OTOH, Verdana doesn't scale up in size very well and looks butt-ugly at larger sizes. Felix will probably give you a good explanation, if he answers this thread. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Hi Julián, There's no reason to avoid Verdana. In the example webpage you referenced, the author's chief concern seems to be with what happens to copy legibility if Verdana is *not* installed. As Verdana comes bundled with a significant number of Microsoft products and the Windows operating system [1], a user would need to actively remove Verdana from their computer before this would be an issue. I'm assuming that the such users would also have the requisite skills to adjust text size and/or define their own style sheet. Other users that do not either use Windows or Microsoft products probably fall into the category of 'technology enthusiasts' and may be more likely to be those with a tendency to customise their own interface. The 'attractiveness' of Verdana is matter of preference, as is the optimal size that copy should be set at. One of the more interesting points about Verdana is that it was designed specifically for onscreen legibility (unlike Times New Roman, Arial, etc.) The design of the typeface is such that the apparent letterform (bitmap) changes significantly depending on the size it is set at. The typeface was also intentionally designed with larger counters (the negative space insize the letterforms) for the same reason. As Mike mentions, the most productive point to take from the webpage is to enable text to be resized, i.e. to avoid non-relative sizing methods such as pixels, points, etc*. REFERENCES [1] http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fonts/default.aspx * Yes the W3C describes pixels as a relative unit, however it is more accurate to consider that this 'relative' quality only exists in terms of contrasting outputs: paper vs. screen, or screen resolution, i.e. beyond the browser experience. Cheers, -- Andy Kirkwood | Creative Director Motive | web.design.integrity http://www.motive.co.nz ph: (04) 3 800 800 fx: (04) 970 9693 mob: 021 369 693 93 Rintoul St, Newtown PO Box 7150, Wellington South, New Zealand ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Mike Brown said: Thus a user without Verdana installed (not extremely likely currently) I'm sure theres around 20% of people who disagree with you on that one Mike ;-). I think the real issue behind a lot of font sizing problems that articles like this one are referring to stem from IE 5 days. IE5 renders fonts larger than any other browser, and when PC only dev's would specify font sizes of 8 or 9 pt Verdana or similar, anyone not using that browser and that platform would get fonts about 6-7px tall. There is nothing wrong with using verdana per se, just make sure your pages are readable when that font is not available. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Julián Landerreche wrote: I have been reading few articles (like http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html) about avoiding Verdana font. But I cant get the whole point in this issue. I mean: I understand that if you use a tiny font-size (like 10px or 0.64em or 64% applied to the body) you will get into problems with all fallback fonts (especialy with Times New Roman). But if you specify a higher font-size value, like 0.8em or 80%, you get a nice Verdana size and if the browser falls back to a font like Times New Roman, it is still very readable. So, please, can someone point me what am I missing about avoiding Verdana? 80% of my preference (my minimum size when I have it enabled) is NOT a nice size, particularly if my preference is a large sized family that you do not specify, but the fallbacks you do specify are not large sized. The classic in-the-wild example font-family rule is 'verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif'. Most Linux systems have neither Verdana nor Arial installed, at least not by default. Commonly such systems have Arial mapped to Helvetica. Helvetica can be a sizing problem, since traditionally it is a bitmapped font. Examples: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/verdvhelve-s82ggtk1.gif http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/verdvhelve-fc3g.gif ~Source: http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/Font/font-verd-v-helve.html Less extreme examples also included at bottom of this list: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/ -- Be quick to listen, slow to speak.James 1:19 NIV 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
As Verdana comes bundled with a significant number of Microsoft products and the Windows operating system [...] With Mac OS X too. The 'attractiveness' of Verdana is matter of preference [...] it was designed specifically for onscreen legibility Exactly. More info: http://www.designinflight.com/04October/web_typefaces_what_works_where_and_why.html -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
I would ignore this advice also. For a start, the general advice is to use a sans-serif font for screen display - not a serif font such as Times New Roman, Garamond, Century or Bookman. It is standard practice to specify the fallback fonts or font families to use if one is not installed on the users machine, so the argument of it dropping back to a miniscule Times New Roman is moot. Secondly, I have found users more accepting of web pages with a font size that is easily legible rather than the super tiny fonts sometimes used by the more artistic designers (eg http://www.ultrashock.com/ I always have trouble reading the text on this site) The author's comment On the web however the reader is free to set a font and size which he/she finds legible, and there is no need whatever for a web author to set a different one on the grounds of greater legibility for me bears no validity as the point is to set a default value but allow users to adjust to suit their preference, thus ems should be used not points or pixels as used for the examples. Graham Cook www.uaoz.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Julián Landerreche Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2005 10:43 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point. Hi all, I have been reading few articles (like http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html) about avoiding Verdana font. But I cant get the whole point in this issue. I mean: I understand that if you use a tiny font-size (like 10px or 0.64em or 64% applied to the body) you will get into problems with all fallback fonts (especialy with Times New Roman). But if you specify a higher font-size value, like 0.8em or 80%, you get a nice Verdana size and if the browser falls back to a font like Times New Roman, it is still very readable. So, please, can someone point me what am I missing about avoiding Verdana? Thanks in advance and excuse my english Julián Landerreche ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.8/113 - Release Date: 27/09/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.8/113 - Release Date: 27/09/2005 ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Surely you would also specify sans-serif as a generic fallback from Verdana rather then using a serifed font? Samuel Graham Cook wrote: I would ignore this advice also. For a start, the general advice is to use a sans-serif font for screen display - not a serif font such as Times New Roman, Garamond, Century or Bookman. It is standard practice to specify the fallback fonts or font families to use if one is not installed on the users machine, so the argument of it dropping back to a miniscule Times New Roman is moot. Secondly, I have found users more accepting of web pages with a font size that is easily legible rather than the super tiny fonts sometimes used by the more artistic designers (eg http://www.ultrashock.com/ I always have trouble reading the text on this site) The author's comment On the web however the reader is free to set a font and size which he/she finds legible, and there is no need whatever for a web author to set a different one on the grounds of greater legibility for me bears no validity as the point is to set a default value but allow users to adjust to suit their preference, thus ems should be used not points or pixels as used for the examples. Graham Cook www.uaoz.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Julián Landerreche Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2005 10:43 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point. Hi all, I have been reading few articles (like http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html) about avoiding Verdana font. But I cant get the whole point in this issue. I mean: I understand that if you use a tiny font-size (like 10px or 0.64em or 64% applied to the body) you will get into problems with all fallback fonts (especialy with Times New Roman). But if you specify a higher font-size value, like 0.8em or 80%, you get a nice Verdana size and if the browser falls back to a font like Times New Roman, it is still very readable. So, please, can someone point me what am I missing about avoiding Verdana? Thanks in advance and excuse my english Julián Landerreche ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Yes - that was my point Graham Cook www.uaoz.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Samuel Richardson Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2005 12:00 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point. Surely you would also specify sans-serif as a generic fallback from Verdana rather then using a serifed font? Samuel Graham Cook wrote: I would ignore this advice also. For a start, the general advice is to use a sans-serif font for screen display - not a serif font such as Times New Roman, Garamond, Century or Bookman. It is standard practice to specify the fallback fonts or font families to use if one is not installed on the users machine, so the argument of it dropping back to a miniscule Times New Roman is moot. Secondly, I have found users more accepting of web pages with a font size that is easily legible rather than the super tiny fonts sometimes used by the more artistic designers (eg http://www.ultrashock.com/ I always have trouble reading the text on this site) The author's comment On the web however the reader is free to set a font and size which he/she finds legible, and there is no need whatever for a web author to set a different one on the grounds of greater legibility for me bears no validity as the point is to set a default value but allow users to adjust to suit their preference, thus ems should be used not points or pixels as used for the examples. Graham Cook www.uaoz.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Julián Landerreche Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2005 10:43 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point. Hi all, I have been reading few articles (like http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html) about avoiding Verdana font. But I cant get the whole point in this issue. I mean: I understand that if you use a tiny font-size (like 10px or 0.64em or 64% applied to the body) you will get into problems with all fallback fonts (especialy with Times New Roman). But if you specify a higher font-size value, like 0.8em or 80%, you get a nice Verdana size and if the browser falls back to a font like Times New Roman, it is still very readable. So, please, can someone point me what am I missing about avoiding Verdana? Thanks in advance and excuse my english Julián Landerreche ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.8/113 - Release Date: 27/09/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.8/113 - Release Date: 27/09/2005 ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
On 10/3/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most Linux systems have neither Verdana nor Arial installed, at least not by default. True, but these days nearly every Linux distribution ships the free Bitstream Vera font set, which includes a sans-serif with metrics similar to Verdana. Also, the core web fonts are typically available as an easily-installed package for most distributions, which will provide Verdana and other fonts. I've found that the following works well for providing compatibility to Linux users (and as a full-time Linux user for a number of years, I can personally attest to its effectiveness): Verdana, Bitstream Vera Sans, Lucida Sans, sans-serif -- May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. -- George Carlin ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 23:09:58 -0400, James Bennett wrote: Verdana, Bitstream Vera Sans, Lucida Sans, sans-serif Now that is something useful to know! Thank you! What specifically is the Lucida Sans addressing? 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 **
Re: [WSG] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
On 10/3/05, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What specifically is the Lucida Sans addressing? Most distributions these days ship the Bitstream Vera fonts, but not all. Lucida Sans, however, is about as universal as you can get on Linux and gives you one last fall-back to aim at before hitting the generic 'sans-serif' family, and has wide enough availability on other systems to enable easy testing of how it'll look. -- May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. -- George Carlin ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
I think there's something fundamentally wrong when a discussion about what font you should and shouldn't use is brought up in the context of web standards. Web Standards is nice but to me it seems like its becoming this 'Eliteist' approach, and if you don't follow the guidelines exactly right, then you've completely missed the boat. Am I the only one that fills this way? I know this is a group to discuss ALL things Web Standards and people have their questions and they should be heard by all means. There are no stupid questions when it comes to web standards because to the mainstream web developer/user it's considered a new thing because it's finally catching on. I'm not trying to offend anybody here at all but so many posts about whether or not to use Verdana is just boring. Buddy James Bennett wrote: On 10/3/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most Linux systems have neither Verdana nor Arial installed, at least not by default. True, but these days nearly every Linux distribution ships the free Bitstream Vera font set, which includes a sans-serif with metrics similar to Verdana. Also, the "core web fonts" are typically available as an easily-installed package for most distributions, which will provide Verdana and other fonts. I've found that the following works well for providing compatibility to Linux users (and as a full-time Linux user for a number of years, I can personally attest to its effectiveness): Verdana, "Bitstream Vera Sans", "Lucida Sans", sans-serif -- "May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." -- George Carlin ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Buddy Quaid Sent: Tue 4/10/2005 13:32 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point. I think there's something fundamentally wrong when a discussion about what font you should and shouldn't use is brought up in the context of web standards. Why? Discussion of that allows us to make informed design/typography decisions that would otherwise result in a less-than-optimal user experience for minority user groups. Actually... I agree, web standards is wrong. Best practices and accessibility/usability, however, fit this discussion (IMHO) quite nicely. Web standards (as this whole quagmire is unfortunately known) aren't really about standards at all. Shock, horror. Go stick that in a validator. We occasionally lose sight of the reasons for pursuing these standards (technically recommendations, sometimes not even that) -- namely, catering for a wider audience irrespective of browsing technology (IE, Lynx, PDAs, Google); future-proofing information through semantic markup; and (this is true in a professional context, at least) improving ROI for businesses websites. If the second reason there was our only cause, you're right, discussion about design and typography would be irrelevant. But the first and third reasons mean it's something we should worry about: firstly because we want to deliver the best possible experience (I know this sounds like marketing crap, sorry!) for all platforms -- and this means using the best fonts wherever possible (or relevant -- it's not for Google or JAWS, etc.) --, and secondly because (subject to the same condition of relevance) image _does_ matter for a number of websites out there... and CSS(standards)-based design can help achieve this, because you've got more than one shot at specifying fonts to target different platforms... amongst other things, like handheld stylesheets, etc. /rant Josh -- Joshua Street base10solutions http://www.base10solutions.com.au/ winmail.dat
Re: [WSG] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Yea, I agree with you on all of those issues...I myself love the use of
css layout and try to choose the best fonts possible. But I guess what
i'm trying to get at; is that there is a threshold on how far a group
should take things in any direction. It seems that the big picture of
web standards is great and makes sense and I try my best to use whats
available. Do I sit up all night reading DTD's? Not a chance...I just
don't have the time. I wish I did and I admire those that can read it
and understand and retain all that they read about it. I dont use the
accronym and cite and q tags like I should. But like a tree, some of
these discussions go out on a long limb and lose focus of the big
picture.
Buddy Q.
Joshua Street wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Buddy Quaid
Sent: Tue 4/10/2005 13:32
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
I think there's something fundamentally wrong when a discussion about what font you should and shouldn't use is brought up in the context of web standards.
Why? Discussion of that allows us to make informed design/typography decisions that would otherwise result in a less-than-optimal user experience for "minority" user groups. Actually... I agree, web standards is wrong. Best practices and accessibility/usability, however, fit this discussion (IMHO) quite nicely.
"Web standards" (as this whole quagmire is unfortunately known) aren't really about standards at all. Shock, horror. Go stick that in a validator. We occasionally lose sight of the reasons for pursuing these "standards" (technically "recommendations", sometimes not even that) -- namely, catering for a wider audience irrespective of browsing technology (IE, Lynx, PDAs, Google); future-proofing information through semantic markup; and (this is true in a professional context, at least) improving ROI for businesses websites.
If the second reason there was our only cause, you're right, discussion about design and typography would be irrelevant. But the first and third reasons mean it's something we should worry about: firstly because we want to deliver the best possible experience (I know this sounds like marketing crap, sorry!) for all platforms -- and this means using the best fonts wherever possible (or relevant -- it's not for Google or JAWS, etc.) --, and secondly because (subject to the same condition of relevance) image _does_ matter for a number of websites out there... and CSS("standards")-based design can help achieve this, because you've got more than one shot at specifying fonts to target different platforms... amongst other things, like handheld stylesheets, etc.
/rant
Josh
--
Joshua Street
base10solutions
http://www.base10solutions.com.au/
**
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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
From: Buddy Quaid But like a tree, some of these discussions go out on a long limb and lose focus of the big picture. Each member goes down a different branch at different times on the various projects they work on. If we allow them and others to extend that branch at that time, over time all the branches get extended and the whole tree grows providing mutual benefits for us all. What seems like esoteric minutae today might be just what you are looking for in the archives in six months time. -- Peter Williams ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
James Bennett wrote: On 10/3/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most Linux systems have neither Verdana nor Arial installed, at least not by default. True, but these days nearly every Linux distribution ships the free Bitstream Vera font set, which includes a sans-serif with metrics similar to Verdana. Also, the core web fonts are typically available as an easily-installed package for most distributions, which will provide Verdana and other fonts. I've installed a lot of Linux distros, and surprisingly few install Vera by default, though they usually include them on the installation media. OTOH, most distros do make migrating Windows fonts, or as you say, installing mswbfnts, quite easy. So, with that rule what you may get from those who've migrated from Win9x is what I see on my Linux server used for most of the screenshots I use for site checks: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/lusans.gif. Aaack! This on mine because of the absence of Verdana, which, with it's oversize h-height, I find grotesque at sizes large enough to read with comfort. I've found that the following works well for providing compatibility to Linux users (and as a full-time Linux user for a number of years, I can personally attest to its effectiveness): Verdana, Bitstream Vera Sans, Lucida Sans, sans-serif ... Lea de Groot wrote: What specifically is the Lucida Sans addressing? Most distributions these days ship the Bitstream Vera fonts, but not all. Lucida Sans, however, is about as universal as you can get on Linux and gives you one last fall-back to aim at before hitting the generic 'sans-serif' family, and has wide enough availability on other systems to enable easy testing of how it'll look. What I hope you meant to suggest was 'Verdana, Bitstream Vera Sans, Luxi Sans, sans-serif'. This is Fedora Core 4, with Vera installed, but no Windows fonts migrated: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/fonts-L-FC4.png (URW Gothic L is the default setting) from source http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/Font/fonts-face-samplesL.html It wouldn't hurt to include 'lucida sans unicode' just to be safe from the old W9x lucida sans italic, unless you expect normal line-heights, which you won't get from lucida sans unicode on doze unless you explicitly set line-height for it. FWIW, FC4 apparently ships without Helvetica, something I've never noticed on any Linux before. -- Be quick to listen, slow to speak.James 1:19 NIV 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
At 08:32 PM 10/3/2005, Buddy Quaid wrote: I'm not trying to offend anybody here at all but so many posts about whether or not to use Verdana is just boring. Boring! Holy smokes, every technical field is boring unless the details happen to fascinate you. Boring isn't an attribute of information, it's an attitude of the perceiver. I don't read every posting in the web design listserves I belong to, but I'm glad I followed this particular thread because it yielded a gem I value highly when James Bennett wrote: I've found that the following works well for providing compatibility to Linux users (and as a full-time Linux user for a number of years, I can personally attest to its effectiveness): Verdana, Bitstream Vera Sans, Lucida Sans, sans-serif ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
So if the Linux fallback for Verdana is Bitstream Vera Sans, what's the Linux fallback for Arial? Samuel Richardson Buddy Quaid wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most Linux systems have neither Verdana nor Arial installed, at least not by default. True, but these days nearly every Linux distribution ships the free Bitstream Vera font set, which includes a sans-serif with metrics similar to Verdana. Also, the core web fonts are typically available as an easily-installed package for most distributions, which will provide Verdana and other fonts. I've found that the following works well for providing compatibility to Linux users (and as a full-time Linux user for a number of years, I can personally attest to its effectiveness): Verdana, Bitstream Vera Sans, Lucida Sans, sans-serif -- May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. -- George Carlin ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] avoid Verdana - I cant get the whole point.
Am I the only one that fills this way? Yes. Fonts are extremely important to web design and web standards. They have a lot to do with readability and user friendliness. It's not elitist.
