Universal Font

R

Raf256

For a scientific document? (You later told: "Page that im making
currently is for scientists.")

This would be a web page of a scientific organization.

Ill announce it in ah.critique if I'll finaly get the job :)
No, that's just what you think. You try to _reduce_ people's
possibilities of controlling the font size in their browsers, and
then you present as excuse some homebrew method for changing font
size. People who _had_ learned to set their browser use the font
size they need would now have to learn _your_ way of doing something
similar (let me guess - it only works when JavaScript is enabled?),
for viewing a single page (or a single site), just to learn some
other fancy method on someone else's page.

No, no :)

Current idea of system/page is, that default page will start with 14 px
font. And on top of page (so that voice-reading-browsers will read it
first) will be something like "If You have problems reading this page YOu
can see bigger font, or YOu are viewing page via PDA/palmtop/etc, or are
vision impared - click here" (or something like that nicer written).

Then anyone can choose:

( ) 14 px
(*) 16 px
( ) 18 px
( ) em-based settings
( ) em-based settings large
( ) em-based settings X-large

(*) PL Polish
( ) EN English

[ ] high color contrast (for daltonists, or black-white media, printers)
[ ] printer-optimised version (no big images, no backgrounds)


this settings will be stored in cookies (or maybe some even more
comfortable settings-saving system will be used)

So everyone should be heapy, both belivers of religion
"www is like DTP, we can even just put .jpg of entire page instead ;)"
and "www is information, should be accessible for anyone including deaf
blind daltionists speaking ony Esperanto" :)
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

Raf256 said:
Current idea of system/page is, that default page will start with 14
px font.

The idea is wrong. Simply wrong. It means that the site will _begin_
communication with the user by arguing with his choice of the font size.
Really. Maybe he just chose it out of ignorance, since he didn't know the
font size can be changes. It could well be wrong, or suboptimal, for him.
It's still his choice, and it's up to him to change it.
And on top of page (so that voice-reading-browsers will read
it first) will be something like "If You have problems reading this
page YOu can see bigger font, or YOu are viewing page via
PDA/palmtop/etc, or are vision impared - click here" (or something
like that nicer written).

Worse than pointless. Much worse.

First, you will be imitated by authors who implement the wrong idea much
worse.

Second, it addresses the font issue at a wrong level - at a level where
it can never be solved, just messed up.

Third, it gets into technicalities _first_. Even if you aren't selling
anything, it's better to start with something else than discussing the
user's browser settings (unless your site is really for helping people
with such settings).

Fourth, it contains terms and abbreviations that are not known by
billions of people, for no good reason. Why should a user stop wondering
whether his PC is "PDA" or whether he is "vision impared"?
Then anyone can choose:

( ) 14 px
(*) 16 px
( ) 18 px
( ) em-based settings
( ) em-based settings large
( ) em-based settings X-large

Again, worse than pointless. Billions of people don't know what "px" is,
and fairly few people know what it _really_ means. They are used to other
measures of font size, or none. And "em-based settings" is just gibberish
to most people, and _very_ few people know what "em" really is.
(*) PL Polish
( ) EN English

This is quite different, and should be handled differently. In any robust
design of a bilingual site, the main page indeed has a language
selection, but it's _links_, not radio buttons. It is very confusing to
mix language selection with presentational preferences. And you can make
language selection automatic, see
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/multi/
though this should not be relied upon but only treated as extra
convenience.
[ ] high color contrast (for daltonists, or black-white media,
printers) [ ] printer-optimised version (no big images, no
backgrounds)

Pointless. Use @media print { ... } in a style sheet, and let people
using special devices live with what their browsers get - making as much
sense out of the markup as they can. (They will often ignore any CSS you
have.)
this settings will be stored in cookies (or maybe some even more
comfortable settings-saving system will be used)

Then you would _need_ to have a description of the use of cookies on the
site. This is a requirement in a EU directive - it's not just good
manners:
<http://europa.eu.int/cgi-bin/eur-lex/udl.pl?REQUEST=Seek-Deliver;
COLLECTION=lif;SERVICE=all;LANGUAGE=en;DOCID=302L0058>

And, in turn, any such description will confuse a large number of people.
So everyone should be heapy,

I'm afraid so.
 
E

Els

Toby said:
My font witch will look identical in Win32 and Linux browsers, but is not
supported in Netscape 4.x. :-(

Wrong, it is supported in Netscape 4.x. :)
Well, on Windows XP anyway.
 
W

Whitecrest

Your problem seems to be that you think doing things sensibly and doing
things prettily are mutually exclusive.

Your problem seems to be that you think everyone wants to use the web
the same way. There is so much more to a web site than a web page.
 
J

Jeff Thies

I wanted to have a font witch will look identical on most systems
Stop wanting that.


Well, it's a move in the right direction. What made you use Verdana in
the first place? It's been discussed _many_ times that Verdana is not
suitable for copy text on Web pages _because_ it has been optimized for
screen use. (And you need to read the discussion to understand this
paradox.)

Hmmm. Can you point to some resources on this.

Also, let's say that a page is designed to be printed. Is it better to
specify a font family like Arial or use sans-serif (which is my default
useage).

I haven't heard any complaints about sans-serif as a print font. (This
client ported a desktop app to the web and talks to *all* their clients
frequently) , I do get other requests.

Or for that matter, choose a serif or "Times Roman" for printing. For
whatever reasons, sans-serif fonts are easier for me to read online.

Setting font-family: Arial is mostly harmless, but
font-family: Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
is sometimes mentioned as a safer way, since on Macs, the Arial font is
poor and Geneva is better (they say - I have no prima facie evidence).

Hmmm again. I have a client who is a Mac guy with a deep background in print
as well as web. I often get designs from him with fonts specified in Arial
and Verdana, never seen him use Geneva. I doubt he would use Arial (seems to
use this if space is restricted, ie nav) if it appeared poor to him.

Maybe some variance on Arial quality in Macs? They look fine on my G3. But
then, I'm far from being a typographer!

Cheers,
Jeff
 
I

Inger Helene Falch-Jacobsen

Whitecrest said:
They offer a non flash version for all of the Technology challenged
people too.

Where is it?
Nothing happens, not even with enabled Javascript. Guess I am too technology
challenged.
I use Mozilla/Adblock and filter all swf files.
 
N

Nick Theodorakis

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:44:08 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"


[...]
Setting font-family: Arial is mostly harmless, but
font-family: Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
is sometimes mentioned as a safer way, since on Macs, the Arial font is
poor and Geneva is better (they say - I have no prima facie evidence).

<shrug> I looked at them using a Mac at work. Geneva didn't look that
any better than either Verdana or Arial; a little denser than Verdana,
and not as dense as Arial. Perhaps that was a fairly common "if it's
from MS it must be evil" attitude expressed.

Speaking of sans-serif fonts, one thing I did notice is that neither
Geneva nor Arial seem to make the upper case "I" different than the
lower case "L". Tahoma, another sans-serif font that seems to be
fairly widely available on systems that have some sort of MS software
installed on them, gives the upper case "I" a top and bottom bar
(there must be a technical term for those). Similarly, Trebuchet MS
distinguishes the lower case "L" by giving it a little "foot."

Nick
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

<shrug> I looked at them using a Mac at work. Geneva didn't look that
any better than either Verdana or Arial; a little denser than
Verdana, and not as dense as Arial.

It seems that the Geneva strategy is outdated, since
http://home.earthlink.net/~bobbau/platforms/MacArialFonts/
says:
"Note added 2004-01-01:
The problem described in this document (last updated 1999-10-27 before
adding this note) is rapidly disappearing, as it applies only to
Macintosh computers running old operating systems (Mac OS 9 or earlier).
Most Mac users have, by now, made the switch to Mac OS X which, by
default, applies anti-aliasing to all fonts, and comes with a version of
Arial that displays fine at all sizes. Thus, there is no longer any need
to force Mac users to view Geneva font when Arial is intended."
 
T

Toby A Inkster

Nick said:
Tahoma, another sans-serif font that seems to be
fairly widely available on systems that have some sort of MS software
installed on them, gives the upper case "I" a top and bottom bar
(there must be a technical term for those).

There is a technical term. They're called "serifs".

It is for this reason that Tahoma and Verdana aren't *true* sans-serif
fonts. ('Sans' is French for 'without'.) See also the upper-case J.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,792
Messages
2,569,639
Members
45,351
Latest member
RoxiePulli

Latest Threads

Top