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

51–60 of 70 posts

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

#51

Post by gchpaco »

bigfudge wrote: post #43
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?

Exceedingly legible on mine even at 7-8pt sizes, but I should note that I'm very accustomed to reading Garamond and may be inferring more. I know my first impression from the iPhone 4 was that it was blurry; I think this is because I could no longer see the pixels, which I had apparently been subtly keying off. It is definitely not blurry, but still sometimes disorients me.

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

#52

Post by imagii »

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 would also be interested in this email, if it's not too much trouble. My email is on my profile page.

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

#53

Post by sesqu »

[deleted] wrote: post #49
sprout wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[deleted]

You mean like this thing in CSS3? http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/#resolution

For an example of viewport CSS, take a look at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1377241

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

#54

Post by malbiniak »

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.

Here's my logic: if you read the post, you already saw the plug (on the post).

Edit: that sounds snarky. It's not intended to be, but just an explanation of why I downvoted. I can appreciate your later comment, but when I made my reply to your original comment, yours was the only other comment in the submission. It seemed tacky.

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

#55

Post by natep »

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.

Since there's so many of us interested, can you just submit it to HN and email us the link? I'm sure the resulting discussion would also be helpful.

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

#56

Post by [deleted] »

wmf wrote: post #38
zokier wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually its 10 points (at least so it's defined in the CSS). But I wouldn't like to read any longer passages in this font size, and sometimes I zoom in even here to read more comfortably. But 12pt seems actually quite comfortable now that I tried it, so the part about it being too small can be redacted. But the main point was that I strongly disagree defining font sizes in pixels. What happens when somebody with 250…

Note that a px is not the same thing as a pixel. On a 250 PPI display 1 px probably equals 2 pixels. http://webkit.org/blog/55/high-dpi-web-sites/

[deleted]

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

#57

Post by xanados »

The irony is that the font used in this article actually renders to be really unattractive on my Windows machine at work. I've always noticed that they use this font at BusinessWeek online, and it's always bugged me, personally. It looks like someone took a notch out of each of the letters or something. It looks a lot better on my Mac. Screenshot on Windows: http://imgur.com/hWzXN.png

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

#58

Post by crystalis »

malbiniak wrote: post #54
kadavy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here's my logic: if you read the post, you already saw the plug (on the post). Edit: that sounds snarky. It's not intended to be, but just an explanation of why I downvoted. I can appreciate your later comment, but when I made my reply to your original comment, yours was the only other comment in the submission. It seemed tacky.

I read the post and completely missed the plug on the post. The color and offset put it squarely in my internet blind spot after years of untargeted annoying internet ads. I was surprised when I looked again to verify and saw that I had looked past it twice.

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

#59

Post by blahedo »

wmf wrote: post #38
zokier wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually its 10 points (at least so it's defined in the CSS). But I wouldn't like to read any longer passages in this font size, and sometimes I zoom in even here to read more comfortably. But 12pt seems actually quite comfortable now that I tried it, so the part about it being too small can be redacted. But the main point was that I strongly disagree defining font sizes in pixels. What happens when somebody with 250…

Note that a px is not the same thing as a pixel. On a 250 PPI display 1 px probably equals 2 pixels. http://webkit.org/blog/55/high-dpi-web-sites/

This just makes me angry. The whole point of being able to specify in px was to have something that is actually specific to the device's pixels---otherwise you'd use points or inches or cm---for those rare instances where the pixel count is actually relevant. Of course, it got overused, but the answer should not be to just redefine "pixel" as "something a bit smaller than a point" (except in a bit more detail)! Argh.

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

#60

Post by imd »

blahedo wrote: post #59
wmf wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that a px is not the same thing as a pixel. On a 250 PPI display 1 px probably equals 2 pixels. http://webkit.org/blog/55/high-dpi-web-sites/

This just makes me angry. The whole point of being able to specify in px was to have something that is actually specific to the device's pixels---otherwise you'd use points or inches or cm---for those rare instances where the pixel count is actually relevant. Of course, it got overused, but the answer should not be to just redefine "pixel" as "something a bit smaller than a point" (except in a bit more detail)! Argh.

I may be reading it wrong, but it sounds like a px is a pixel—until you zoom in. If you define a web page’s default font size as 12px, and it stayed at that no matter how much you zoomed in, it wouldn’t be much of a zoom feature, would it?
Post reply on HN