I was under the impression that the reason for choosing Verdana first had to do with wide availability on user systems, along with Arial and sans-serif, as someone else mentioned?
When I tested one site on a computer owned by a regular Joe, I had used a font family that was not common on a lot of systems, and this guy's computer simply defaulted to the font his system had specified: Times New Roman, which did not look pretty at all. So, I've been operating under the thinking that we need a) an easily readable font that is b) available on the majority of users' computers. Am I mistaken in following that logic? I happen to be a font freak...I love to find and download different fonts. I can't assume that everyone else will have those really cool-looking ones that really add zip to a page. Right? Leslie > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Felix Miata > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 4:32 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough? > > > On the contrary. Because authors using Verdana as primary > size according > to their own taste for the giant font, when people without it see the > fallback, whatever that may be, it is a virtual certainty > that whatever > replaces it will be smaller. Have you not read > http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html? > -- ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
