"Web safe" a thing of the 90's?

[msswasstastic]

Are there any valid arguments that support sticking to the same basic
screen fonts? Arial and times being the most common. You can go back to
every major OS release over the past decade and see that a great deal
of fonts are supported online.

I can see using the web safe font argument back in 1998 because there
were still people using very old OS's.

The same thing goes for web safe colors. This argument dates back to a
time when putting up a .jpg was a risk and the safe bet was a .gif.

Really, is there anyone's computer who can't load a font such as Impact
online or can't view .jpg images correctly?

Web safe in 2005 seems more like ridiculously safe.

 

[Richard Brooks]

Are there any valid arguments that support sticking to the same basic
screen fonts? Arial and times being the most common. You can go back to
every major OS release over the past decade and see that a great deal
of fonts are supported online.

I can see using the web safe font argument back in 1998 because there
were still people using very old OS's.

The same thing goes for web safe colors. This argument dates back to a
time when putting up a .jpg was a risk and the safe bet was a .gif.

Really, is there anyone's computer who can't load a font such as Impact
online or can't view .jpg images correctly?

As to the Impact font family they're not free! I think most people just
want to load an operating system with associated fonts then a browser
package and get on with it.

<http://www.linotype.com/858/impact-family.html>


Richard.

 

[David Dorward]

Are there any valid arguments that support sticking to the same basic
screen fonts?

Not really. If the user doesn't have a font, then they get the fallback
font. No big deal in most cases.

The same thing goes for web safe colors. This argument dates back to a
time when putting up a .jpg was a risk and the safe bet was a .gif.

The argument dates back to when 256 colour displays were common, and
designers hated dithering. (And the safe bet was a GIF that used a specific
colour palette, and using that palette for any colour specifications in the
HTML document / style sheet).

Really, is there anyone's computer who can't load a font such as Impact
online

Well I don't have it ... but so what?

 

[Jose]

Are there any valid arguments that support sticking to the same basic

screen fonts?

Yes. Not everyone has the same environment that the web designer
assumes they should have, and not everyone uses it the same way. It's a
matter of consideration for the user over the host. If you are going to
use an oddball font/background/format/style/tag, be sure the user will
agree that you had a good reason for using it.

There is still old hardware out there, the sites should look towards
being usable on a PDA or a telephone, in a low bandwidth situation,
under non-ideal lighting (and hardware configurations that
compensate)... and often the hardest thing for a web designer to
internalize is that the user DOES NOT CARE about the image the web site
is attempting to project. The user wants the inforamtion, quickly,
clearly, and without strings attached. (n.b. Flash is a big string)

Back to fonts. The world is full of pretty fonts, but they mainly work
best in print, where all aspects of production can be controlled (except
perhaps lighting). On the computer screen, you don't know the size,
resolution, glare, CPU load, and screen real estate available. The user
may well scrunch you up into a corner so he can get other work done
while browsing, or can copy/paste into his own document (maybe a
Christmas list or something), and what happens to your oh-so-carefully
chosen font when that happens?

For a time I had a monitor whose refresh rate was a bit on the slow side
for the (maximum) resolution I had set, so I changed my background color
to snot green to minimize eyestrain. Some websites accepted this,
others overruled me and insisted I had to look at their pretty
(incomprehensible) fonts with bright white behind them. This was worse
with sites that specified a background (don't get me started!).

Some users (myself included) WILL NOT download fonts or anything else a
website wants me to download. I don't trust the web (and this situation
is getting worse). If your site insists on some wacky font, it's history.

Jose

 

[msswasstastic]

Jose, I didn't really want to get into this type of argument since
it'll send the thread spiraling out of control. There's always going to
be people against flash, fixed width and other "no-no's," but they all
in some way have a proven successful use depending on your situation.
I'll end it at that.

People on PDA's may not care about fonts, but smart webmasters have
mobile alternatives for their sites anyway. Sure, you can create a site
that translates over into mobile and is "usable," but it's never going
to be as good as a mobile specific design.

 

[Greg N.]

Are there any valid arguments that support ...

I didn't really want to get into this type of argument since
it'll send the thread spiraling out of control...

So you did not really want to hear any valid arguments in the first
place, but rather have your sermon broadcast unchallenged, no?

 

[Rob McAninch]

(e-mail address removed)>:

Sure, you can create a site
that translates over into mobile and is "usable," but it's never going
to be as good as a mobile specific design.

Making mobile specific designs is a kludge. It's like the 'old' days
of IE or NN specific designs. Go ahead and use funky fonts or what
not, but be sure it degrades gracefully enough that information can
be used.

Of course, some sites have a more specific use than general
information. E.g. a high resolution photo gallery is not meant to be
useful on a green and black PDA screen (or even a color PDA for that
matter).