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 ******************************************************
