David, SIFR is a good alternative, but it works only for handwritten fonts, but not for actual handwriting.
Jeff, here comes the heat. :) Saying that handwriting is wholly inappropriate is way too singular. What it boils down to is "it depends". Is the treatment used for core navigation and information--or is it being used to accent the design? And what is the purpose and audience of the site? Maybe for a photographer's portfolio, it makes sense to use it in the primary navigation since the visitors are most likely sighted. Or, maybe looking at it with a browser with images disabled isn't a requirement. So, I'm with Matt on this one. It's up to the UXD to figure out whether the negatives are outweighed by the benefit. Saying it's crap is like saying page layout should never be used to indicate architecture. On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Jeff Seager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Web design and print design share *some* characteristics, Matthew. I > also share some characteristics with a mountain gorilla, but I'm not > a mountain gorilla. In a similar way, the Web is an evolutionary > cousin of print and other media. Many fundamental design principles > do carry over to web design. Some don't. > > Among other things, I'm an accessibility advocate. The various > markup languages used in web design were meant from the start to > serve up content in accessible ways, and this idea of doing > handwritten design might be OK for very limited use -- maybe for a > site on the topic of excellent handwriting, or handwriting analysis. > To use it extensively would be a real headache if you did it as the > standards require. So a more polite way of saying "this is crap" > would be to say "I don't like headaches." > > The point where we may diverge is this: "If it works, it works." > What does that mean? If it's standards-compliant and semantically > structured AND attractive and functional, it works. Otherwise, it > just looks good. The thing that riles me about that statement is that > it carries this underlying assumption: If it works for ME, it will > work for EVERYONE. And that's not true. > > On one level, design is design. All disciplines share certain > principles of good design. But you don't design a 20-story building > with the exact same engineering principles used in designing a kite, > even though the two can have significant aesthetic similarities. A > highway engineer doesn't design a complex interchange to LOOK good > first, without regard to function, and I think the Smashing Magazine > article encourages just that kind of thinking. > > Web design isn't just what we see and experience on the browser du > jour. There's a bunch of important stuff under the hood. My personal > feelings of aesthetic like or dislike aside, I don't call a design > "good" unless it also satisfies the basic rules of structure and > accessibility. > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org > http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=29152 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help > -- ____________________________ http://www.oombrella.com oombrella /a/ gmail.com ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
