141–150 of 184 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it is more elegant, but if you don't want cross browser, cross platform rendering issues you'll stick with Arial.
No, just put sans-serif. Windows users get arial, os x users get helvetica, Linux users get whatever. Everybody wins.
As a programmer I got 11/20, so juuuust slightly better than random guessing. And I was trying so hard too!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, just put sans-serif. Windows users get arial, os x users get helvetica, Linux users get whatever. Everybody wins.
No, this is horrible advice. The difference in the fonts will make your site look completely different to people using different OSes.
Lately we've developed this fetish for sites being pixel-perfect across any display.
The web was designed to decouple the way a site was designed from the way it's displayed. To allow it to reflow, and people to use their own designs.
If you really want pixel-perfect layout, why not just use bitmaps and imagemaps ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you should stick with verdana. It's fully cross-platform, designed from the start to be a screen font, and generally looks better. Alternatively, @font-face is supported by just about everything at this point, opening up the opportunity to use much better fonts, like open sans (also, helvetica is a print font. It doesn't work for body copy at the sizes commonly used for screen text.)
Learn something new every day. I've always used Helvetica on all my web pages at the behest of my design co-worker. He's a print designer so it makes sense now.
On Windows, however, Helvetica isn't (at least from my experience) as nicely hinted, or at least doesn't play quite as well with Microsoft ClearType. And that's if it's installed, which is less likely on Windows. In that case, if your font stack specifies a fallback to Arial, which is ClearType's best friend, you'll probably be fine.
Arial looks vertically uneven somehow - the tops of the letters of a word seem to form a more solid straight line with Helvetica.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, this is horrible advice. The difference in the fonts will make your site look completely different to people using different OSes.
As it should! ;) Lately we've developed this fetish for sites being pixel-perfect across any display. The web was designed to decouple the way a site was designed from the way it's displayed. To allow it to reflow, and people to use their own designs. If you really want pixel-perfect layout, why not just use bitmaps and imagemaps ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As it should! ;) Lately we've developed this fetish for sites being pixel-perfect across any display. The web was designed to decouple the way a site was designed from the way it's displayed. To allow it to reflow, and people to use their own designs. If you really want pixel-perfect layout, why not just use bitmaps and imagemaps ;)
THIS IS COMPLETE AGAINST EVERYTHING I WAS TAUGHT AHHH
I've always taken the view that you throw the text at an engine and let it do the rendering. If it doesn't look right, the engine needs improving. Manual tweaks fall into the realm of premature optimisation, as chances are the content will change faster than the tweaks can be made.
I can see that beautiful typography is nice to have, but apart from automation, I can't see a way to apply it on a mass scale. Crafted typography is the typographic equivalent of assembly language?
I really don't consider myself a typography expert or designer, but I found that easy and got a perfect score. There are obvious tells in almost all of them -- mostly lowercase "s", "c", etc, in which Helvetica is has perfectly level edges and arial is angled. The only harder ones are some of the all caps examples like TOYOTA.