RE: [WSG] avoid Verdana -> I cant get the whole point.

[Townson, Chris]

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.

[Mugur Padurean]

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.

[Alan Trick]

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.

[Alan Trick]

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
IE 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.

[Felix Miata]

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 Ellis]

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.

[Webspace Works info]

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:



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.)

**
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.

[Peter Johnson]

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.

[Herrod, Lisa]

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.

[Peter Williams]

> 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.

[Peter Johnson]

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.

[Felix Miata]

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.

[T. R. Valentine]

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+†ÛiÿünËZ�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.

[Mugur Padurean]

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.

[James Bennett]

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.

[Christian Montoya]

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 for  http://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.

[Peter Williams]

> 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.

[Peter Williams]

> 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:


-- 
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.

[Christian Montoya]

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 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**-- - C Montoya
rdpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.com

Re: [WSG] avoid Verdana -> I cant get the whole point.

[Christian Montoya]

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.  

Re: [WSG] avoid Verdana -> I cant get the whole point.

[Samuel Richardson]

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.

[Paul Novitski]

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.

[Felix Miata]

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.

[Peter Williams]

> 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.

[Buddy Quaid]

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.



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.

[Joshua Street]

-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.



Josh

--
Joshua Street
base10solutions

http://www.base10solutions.com.au/
<>

Re: [WSG] avoid Verdana -> I cant get the whole point.

[Buddy Quaid]

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.

[James Bennett]

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.

[Lea de Groot]

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.

[James Bennett]

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.

[Graham Cook]

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.

[Samuel Richardson]

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.

[Graham Cook]

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.

[Jan Brasna]

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: 



--
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.

[Felix Miata]

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.

[Terrence Wood]

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.

[Andy Kirkwood | Motive]

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.

[Terrence Wood]

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.

[Mike Brown]

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
**

[WSG] avoid Verdana -> I cant get the whole point.

[Julián Landerreche]

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
**