On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 03:44, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > >On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 19:01, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote: > > > > > > > >>In this case functionality does not dictate that the default fonts look > >>bad. It is possible, and preferred, to have good form and function at > >>the same time. > >> > >> > > > >You seem to have lost track of the argument. It moved from "should we > >stop having helvetica as the preferred font?" (to which everyone seems > >to agree the answer is "yes") to "what should we replace it with?", with > >some arguing for a specific font - verdana or arial or whatever - > >followed by sans-serif, with others arguing for the generic alias first, > >followed by the specific font name. > > > > > > Try looking at the timestamps of the messages before making assumptions > about my grasp of the conversation. You'll find that you're about 5 > hours too late to make that statement.
Uh? What do the timestamps have to do with it? I was simply going by the messages quoted above your reply. You seemed to be thinking that the person to whom you were requiring wanted to keep Helvetica as the default font, which wasn't the case. -- adamw
