Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [NH] Helvetica Not In Control Panel

Expand Messages
  • Ray Shapp
    Hi Greg, Thanks for clarifying this fonts style issue. I ll begin adding sans-serif to my standard
    Message 1 of 12 , Jan 27, 2008
      Hi Greg,

      Thanks for clarifying this fonts style issue.


      <<Most would argue for:"arial, helvetica, sans-serif">>

      I'll begin adding "sans-serif" to my standard declarations.

      Regards,

      Ray Shapp
    • Greg Chapman
      Hi Ray, ... You should always have one of the generic fonts in your declaration, as a fall back. If you only use specify named fonts and the visiting computer
      Message 2 of 12 , Jan 27, 2008
        Hi Ray,

        On 28 Jan 08 05:55 Ray Shapp <ras45@...> said:
        > I'll begin adding "sans-serif" to my standard declarations.

        You should always have one of the generic fonts in your declaration,
        as a fall back. If you only use specify named fonts and the visiting
        computer does not have any of them installed they will use their
        default font. On Windows machines that is "Times New Roman", not even
        close to what you intended, and not an especially good screen font
        anyway.

        Greg
      • loro
        Greg ... I d say Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif would be better considering people say Helvetica looks better than Arial. According to Code Style practically
        Message 3 of 12 , Jan 28, 2008
          Greg
          >Most would argue for:
          >"arial, helvetica, sans-serif"
          >
          >So that Apple systems get Helvetica, unless they've installed any
          >Microsoft software that bundled some fonts, and the rest get whatever
          >font responds to the generic "sans serif".

          I'd say 'Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif' would be better considering
          people say Helvetica looks better than Arial. According to Code Style
          practically all Macs have Arial, so that's what they'll get if it's
          listed first. Not that it matters much. They'll get something.
          http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-family/sampler-MacResults.shtml

          Ray, you may also want to read this. A couple of years old, so things
          may have changed.
          http://realworldstyle.com/fonts.html

          Lotta
        • Ray Shapp
          Hi Greg and Lotta,
          Message 4 of 12 , Jan 28, 2008
            Hi Greg and Lotta,

            <<I'd say 'Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif' would be better >>

            I'm beginning to incorporate this spec in all new and updated pages.

            Thanks again for the help.

            Ray Shapp
          • Marcelo de Castro Bastos
            ... I would add an extra piece of info regarding the above link: A large portion of Windows machines (mostly those with Microsoft Office installed) have a font
            Message 5 of 12 , Jan 29, 2008
              Interviewed by CNN on 28/1/2008 22:30, loro told the world:
              >
              > Ray, you may also want to read this. A couple of years old, so things
              > may have changed.
              > http://realworldstyle.com/fonts.html
              >
              >

              I would add an extra piece of info regarding the above link:

              A large portion of Windows machines (mostly those with Microsoft Office
              installed) have a font called "Lucida Sans Unicode" that's almost
              identical to realworldstyle's first choice for Macs, Lucida Grande.
              Besides the consistency between Mac, Windows and Unix, you have the
              bonus of putting as first-choice a font with reasonably good Unicode
              coverage.

              So, I suggest amending realworldstyle's suggested list this way:

              font-family: 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, Geneva,
              Lucida, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;

              Regarding the other fonts... the author mentions that Geneva is
              "preferred" to Arial and Helvetica, but doesn't explain his reasoning.
              Might be something related to bad Arial and Helvetica fonts in old Macs,
              or something. I don't know.

              I like the Lucida fonts; they are generally very legible and
              well-designed. "Lucida Console," for instance, is my preferred
              monospaced font, because it manages to look good while not having too
              much of a "typewriter" look.

              Verdana is somewhat of a controversial choice. While it looks very crisp
              on screen (it was designed for screens, like its companion, the serif
              font "Georgia"), it has a very large x-height that looks odd if you mix
              it with other fonts -- Verdana typically "looks" one or two points
              larger than other fonts. Also, because of that, a page rendered in
              Verdana might end up looking quite different from a page rendered in
              Lucida Sans, Arial, or Helvetica -- different BEYOND the normal expected
              difference in fonts. Look at this page, which explains better the issues:

              http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

              There are other fonts that might be considered as valid options. I don't
              remember my reasoning right now, but some time ago I added "Trebuchet
              MS" to my sans-serif alternates list. I think it had something to do
              with having about the same metrics as Arial, but looking better.

              Windows Vista and Office 2007 come with a new set of fonts that might be
              better choices in some circumstances.

              Linux machines are a harder problem; the font mix is hardly
              standardized, and some distros (mostly old ones) suffer from a bad Arial
              clone. So it might be useful to add a common Linux font, like Bitstream
              Vera Sans, to the list.




              -=-=-
              A critic is a man who leaves no turn unstoned.
              * TagZilla 0.066 on Seamonkey 1.1.7
            • Marcelo de Castro Bastos
              The update pack to Notetab Pro 5.6 has been available for a few days now. Just open Help/Check for Updates menu and get it. The main Notetab page still
              Message 6 of 12 , Jan 29, 2008
                The update pack to Notetab Pro 5.6 has been available for a few days
                now. Just open "Help/Check for Updates" menu and get it.

                The main Notetab page still mentions only the 5.5 version, though.

                Marcelo

                -=-=-
                Spell chequers dew knot work write.
                * TagZilla 0.066 on Seamonkey 1.1.7
              • sisterscape
                In addition to font choice, there is the issue of font sizing. I found these two links very helpful in sorting things out:
                Message 7 of 12 , Jan 29, 2008
                  In addition to font choice, there is the issue of font sizing. I found
                  these two links very helpful in sorting things out:

                  http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/font/index.html#screens

                  http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/index.html

                  In addition, I started a thread over at Sitepoint on this very issue.
                  It includes feedback from Jeffrey Zeldman and Eric Meyers concerning
                  the font sizing practices on the ALA site (which suffers from the sub
                  1em glitch mentioned by Owen Briggs):

                  http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=309991




                  ____________________________________________________________________________________
                  Looking for last minute shopping deals?
                  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
                • Ray Shapp
                  Hi Marcelo and sister Many thanks for your comprehensive answers. Ray Shapp
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jan 30, 2008
                    Hi Marcelo and sister

                    Many thanks for your comprehensive answers.

                    Ray Shapp
                  • Axel Berger
                    ... Two additions perhaps: If your layout gets more refined, don t forget to test the fallbacks too. And remember that since time immemorial all browsers offer
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jan 30, 2008
                      Ray Shapp wrote:
                      > Many thanks for your comprehensive answers.

                      Two additions perhaps:
                      If your layout gets more refined, don't forget to test the fallbacks
                      too.

                      And remember that since time immemorial all browsers offer the settings
                      "ignore font styles and sizes", "ignore colours", and "use only my
                      preffered font size", which is how three out of four of my browsers are
                      set up. One of the three also ignores all CSS and renders the pure HTML,
                      while all of them ignore scripts unless explicitly allowed for the site,
                      which I am much less likely to do than just leave in disgust.
                      Any well made sites must work with these limitations, they need not be
                      especially beautiful that way, but they have to be useable.

                      Axel
                    • Ray Shapp
                      Hi Axel,
                      Message 10 of 12 , Feb 1, 2008
                        Hi Axel,

                        <<since time immemorial all browsers offer the settings
                        "ignore font styles and sizes", "ignore colours", and "use only my
                        preffered font size",>>

                        Yes, two of my four PCs ignore all the best efforts of the web designers.


                        Thanks for mentioning it.

                        Ray Shapp
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.