Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Design For Hackers: Why You Don't Use Garamond on The Web

kadavy.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 70 posts

Re: Design For Hackers: Why You Don't Use Garamond on The Web

#41

Post by cfdrake »

faramarz wrote: post #17
Sukotto wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would very much like a simple cheat-sheet of "standard" fonts and what range of sizes each looks best at with regards to webpages. Something that I can blindly follow when making the first draft of a site. Anyone want to share a link to such a thing?

http://www.typetester.org is a great resource for making comparisons. But I will try to put together a simple list of standard fonts and how to optimize them for the best results. Will shoot you an email when it's done.

I'm also interested in this, and in case you don't mind sending it to me too: colin.f.drake -at- gmail

Maybe you should also consider posting it? It seems like many people would appreciate it here!

Re: Design For Hackers: Why You Don't Use Garamond on The Web

#42

Post by sprout »

edd wrote: post #4

What this is actually saying is don't use Garamond for copy text as its not designed for current DPI's that are currently used on monitors. It doesn't mean you can't use it for titles or headings or devices with a high DPI.

If you know your target's DPI, that doesn't sound to me like "the web."

Re: Design For Hackers: Why You Don't Use Garamond on The Web

#43

Post by bigfudge »

edd wrote: post #4

What this is actually saying is don't use Garamond for copy text as its not designed for current DPI's that are currently used on monitors. It doesn't mean you can't use it for titles or headings or devices with a high DPI.

What does Garamond look like on an iphone 4?

Re: Design For Hackers: Why You Don't Use Garamond on The Web

#44

Post by [deleted] »

kadavy wrote: post #6
malbiniak wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although it might be a creative way to promote your panel, it earned a downvote. Just don't think it's the appropriate place to promote it.

Can you explain that further? Here's my logic: if you're in the comments on this thread, you're presumably interested in this topic, and would like to learn more about it -> Many HNers go to SXSW, and would get a chance to learn more, should my panel be accepted -> I'm not famous, so getting help from interested people is my only chance at getting a panel accepted.

[deleted]

Re: Design For Hackers: Why You Don't Use Garamond on The Web

#46

Post by vetinari »

faramarz wrote: post #35
powrtoch wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a question on this Helvetica issue actually. It's common knowledge that Helvetica is a better font than Arial, plain and simple. The issue is just that Arial is somehow optimized for screen display (hinting or whatever), whereas most or many Helvetica versions aren't. At least, that's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong. I've always suspected you could get around this handicap this way: font-family:"Helv…

Helvetica is a better font, only when it comes to print/signage or Heading H1/H2/H3 on the screen. Otherwise it becomes unbearable to read at standard body font size 11-13pt. See here http://trevordavis.net/play/helvetica/ Unfortunately for windows users, they don't get the pre-loaded collection and because the font isn't free, most people settle for downloading either one version/style as demo-copy or modified versi…

Or worse - you get Helvetica bundled with HP print drivers, that is unsuitable for any kind of screen reading.

Re: Design For Hackers: Why You Don't Use Garamond on The Web

#47

Post by nhebb »

faramarz wrote: post #17
Sukotto wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would very much like a simple cheat-sheet of "standard" fonts and what range of sizes each looks best at with regards to webpages. Something that I can blindly follow when making the first draft of a site. Anyone want to share a link to such a thing?

http://www.typetester.org is a great resource for making comparisons. But I will try to put together a simple list of standard fonts and how to optimize them for the best results. Will shoot you an email when it's done.

http://www.typetester.org is a great resource for making comparisons.

That's a great resource. It also highlights the futility of specifying alternate font families. I couldn't find any font family combination that looked good side by side using the same size, leading, tracking, etc.

Re: Design For Hackers: Why You Don't Use Garamond on The Web

#49

Post by [deleted] »

sprout wrote: post #42
edd wrote: post #4

What this is actually saying is don't use Garamond for copy text as its not designed for current DPI's that are currently used on monitors. It doesn't mean you can't use it for titles or headings or devices with a high DPI.

If you know your target's DPI, that doesn't sound to me like "the web."

[deleted]

Re: Design For Hackers: Why You Don't Use Garamond on The Web

#50

Post by jm3 »

ybot wrote: post #12

The article mentions Google Font API and Typekit as sources of fonts online, but there's another option that's worth looking at: The Open Font Library ( http://openfontlibrary.org/ ) The fonts hosted there are free (both as in beer and as in freedom). It's interesting to see how they apply the concepts around free software to another medium, like fonts.

FontSquirrel and The League both have some great faces that display very well in modern browsers.

The Open Font Library guys appear to be struggling, however: http://skitch.com/jm3net/dt3cr/broken-font-library [screenshot of the fonts not working in Chrome]

Post reply on HN