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