|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
Helvetica for the Web
Web designers everywhere, please take heed:
Helvetica is completely inappropriate for use as a body typeface for the Web.
While it is important to recognize that Helvetica is superior to Arial in just about any other production usage type, the lack of font hinting and kerning control in the web environment makes it unsuitable for use. In fact, calling
font-family: "HelveticaNeue-Light",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;
makes one’s design uniquely unusable and ugly to the exact people who would find it most annoying and abhorrent: your fellow designers.
Please stop doing this, just call Arial or a suitable Google web font.
+ Show Spoiler [Examples] +with helvetica ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cfVb9jN.png) with arial ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/L0bDG6i.png)
PS: This applies to any non-standard design typeface, not just Helvetica. I've seen websites do fun things like call Univers and FF DIN. The results were, predictably, horrendous.
 
|
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
What's your opinion on Trebuchet, Lucida and Tahoma then?
|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
|
|
|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
|
LOOOOL, I was just about do say something about comic sans. Also, I would agree with ya, I used helvetica in my last personal site design, and the results were less than I'd hoped for from the presentational aspect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what about calibri? That's my personal favorite
|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
keep in mind, these have to be good for the web. im not just talking about general design. I dont think those are standard installed on everyone's computers.
|
On June 04 2013 10:29 itsjustatank wrote:keep in mind, these have to be good for the web. im not just talking about general design. I dont think those are standard installed on everyone's computers.
But Helvetica is just a bad font overall, web or not; I wouldn't even call it a "web font". The older web fonts like Verdana and Georgia, although widely installed, were created for a time where antialiasing was non-existing or primitive.
Given web font technologies (Google Font Directory, Typekit, etc.) local installation is no longer a requirement. You only need the publisher to be the licensee.
|
Canada5155 Posts
The problem here is actually not the font but the way browsers render it.
The image you used as an example... I can bet it was Chrome. Terrible awful horrible aliasing on web fonts (not just google web fonts, I'm talking @font-face on the whole).
Helvetica is fine for the purpose of that image. It's large display sized text and a single line subtitle.
|
Canada5155 Posts
Moral of the story: Use Firefox.
|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
When a font choice disables usability for a significant amount of users when a common font that is interchangeable for it on the web is an option, it just shouldn't be used.
The number of people who use Chrome, have Helvetica installed, and use Flickr has to be a significant amount of people.
|
I have a noob question and I'd love an answer if someone is patient enough to try.
I find this sort of thing interesting. How does someone know (before trial and error) which fonts look good on the web and which do not? If I, as a complete noob, wanted to make a clean, fresh design on a website, how would I know not to use Helvetica or Univers or FF DIN as mentioned above?
Do web browsers just inherently suck at "hinting" (I've no idea what that is) or kerning (I know that one, I think) and therefore can only render "web fonts" that are designed specifically for them?
Also, this comes to mind while I'm asking people in the know: Why is League Gothic "free" but you're not allowed to put it on a site without paying?
OK, that's three questions. I apologize. Would love to know the answers, though!
|
Canada5155 Posts
On June 04 2013 11:17 itsjustatank wrote:
When a font choice disables usability for a significant amount of users when a common font that is interchangeable for it on the web is an option, it just shouldn't be used.
The number of people who use Chrome, have Helvetica installed, and use Flickr has to be a significant amount of people.
Ya this is why we're (trying to) limit our webfont usage in news. I'm not saying it justifies its use, but I'm saying that the problem isn't so much the font itself but rather the support for it.
|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
On June 04 2013 11:17 Mjolnir wrote:I have a noob question and I'd love an answer if someone is patient enough to try. I find this sort of thing interesting. How does someone know (before trial and error) which fonts look good on the web and which do not? If I, as a complete noob, wanted to make a clean, fresh design on a website, how would I know not to use Helvetica or Univers or FF DIN as mentioned above? Do web browsers just inherently suck at "hinting" (I've no idea what that is) or kerning (I know that one, I think) and therefore can only render "web fonts" that are designed specifically for them? Also, this comes to mind while I'm asking people in the know: Why is League Gothic "free" but you're not allowed to put it on a site without paying? OK, that's three questions. I apologize. Would love to know the answers, though!
- Use one of these or a Google Web Font
God help you if you choose Comic Sans or Impact. - Browsers just don't have the typography tools that many of the core design fonts require to be acceptable for use in a production.
- As far as I know, League Gothic is an open source font without any such restriction on use.
On June 04 2013 11:24 HawaiianPig wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 11:17 itsjustatank wrote:
When a font choice disables usability for a significant amount of users when a common font that is interchangeable for it on the web is an option, it just shouldn't be used.
The number of people who use Chrome, have Helvetica installed, and use Flickr has to be a significant amount of people. Ya this is why we're (trying to) limit our webfont usage in news. I'm not saying it justifies its use, but I'm saying that the problem isn't so much the font itself but rather the support for it.
Yeah, I understand. It's just that I get the feeling that the only reason why Helvetica and other fonts like these are being called is as an afterthought by the designer: "Oh, us superior design people can use these fonts instead!" Problem is it can break a site inadvertently if the conditions are met, and that is bad.
Google Web Fonts are different as they are actively being sought out and used as a design choice on the web, I feel.
|
everyone should just stick with times new roman font 12 :/ avoid any trouble
|
On June 04 2013 11:27 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 11:17 Mjolnir wrote:I have a noob question and I'd love an answer if someone is patient enough to try. I find this sort of thing interesting. How does someone know (before trial and error) which fonts look good on the web and which do not? If I, as a complete noob, wanted to make a clean, fresh design on a website, how would I know not to use Helvetica or Univers or FF DIN as mentioned above? Do web browsers just inherently suck at "hinting" (I've no idea what that is) or kerning (I know that one, I think) and therefore can only render "web fonts" that are designed specifically for them? Also, this comes to mind while I'm asking people in the know: Why is League Gothic "free" but you're not allowed to put it on a site without paying? OK, that's three questions. I apologize. Would love to know the answers, though! - Use one of these or a Google Web Font
God help you if you choose Comic Sans or Impact. - Browsers just don't have the typography tools that many of the core design fonts require to be acceptable for use in a production.
- As far as I know, League Gothic is an open source font without any such restriction on use.
Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 11:24 HawaiianPig wrote:On June 04 2013 11:17 itsjustatank wrote:
When a font choice disables usability for a significant amount of users when a common font that is interchangeable for it on the web is an option, it just shouldn't be used.
The number of people who use Chrome, have Helvetica installed, and use Flickr has to be a significant amount of people. Ya this is why we're (trying to) limit our webfont usage in news. I'm not saying it justifies its use, but I'm saying that the problem isn't so much the font itself but rather the support for it. Yeah, I understand. It's just that I get the feeling that the only reason why Helvetica and other fonts like these are being called is as an afterthought by the designer: "Oh, us superior design people can use these fonts instead!" Problem is it can break a site inadvertently if the conditions are met, and that is bad. Google Web Fonts are different as they are actively being sought out and used as a design choice on the web, I feel.
1. I promise not to use Comic Sans, Impact, or Papyrus.
2. Thanks.
3. Tried to use it, it's through typekit. They wanted cash. Maybe I'm doing something wrong.
Thanks for the answers!
|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
You'll have to find hosting for it yourself, Typekit is just trying to make money off of you (and have you pay for the bandwidth it takes to serve the font file).
|
On June 04 2013 11:41 Mjolnir wrote:
3. Tried to use it, it's through typekit. They wanted cash. Maybe I'm doing something wrong.
Thanks for the answers!
The font itself is free, but you pay for Typekit's hosting service.
|
On June 04 2013 11:17 itsjustatank wrote:
When a font choice disables usability for a significant amount of users when a common font that is interchangeable for it on the web is an option, it just shouldn't be used.
The number of people who use Chrome, have Helvetica installed, and use Flickr has to be a significant amount of people.
Is it the font or the font renderer?
What did you use to take those screenshots? Windows' font renderer is notoriously bad with fonts not specifically hinted for it (Verdana, Tahoma, Georgia, the Vista fonts, etc). Fonts like FF Din and Univers *are* excellent web fonts.
|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
Fonts that require certain web browsers or operating systems to look usable at not excellent web fonts.
|
|
|
On June 04 2013 12:34 itsjustatank wrote:
Fonts that require certain web browsers or operating systems to look usable at not excellent web fonts.
Font engines that can only display some fonts properly and are optimized for low DPI should not hold web typography.
Especially if the trend is moving towards devices that do not have such limitations.
Proper font rendering is not new, it just has been deficient on certain platforms for longer than needed.
|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
i understand that opinion as well, but for production sites, such as Flickr in the case of my examples; designers should wait for technology to catch up. we can talk about a pretty web but if it unusable or messed up for a significant amount of one's customer base, it is not a good thing.
|
On June 04 2013 13:38 itsjustatank wrote:
i understand that opinion as well, but for production sites, such as Flickr in the case of my examples; designers should wait for technology to catch up. we can talk about a pretty web but if it unusable or messed up for a significant amount of one's customer base, it is not a good thing.
But the technology is here. Proper font technology on the desktop has been around for a decade (just not on Windows-well, it did get better with Cleartype, but the font needs to be hinted for it). DPI keeps increasing with mobile platforms and the advent of 4k resolution on TV and the desktop. It is not a question on letting technology catch up, but how long it will take to phase out "old" technology.
It's a similar situation to web design. The technology was there to make better web development with Gecko, Presto, and then Webkit, but it took way too long to finally move on from IE5 or IE6 "optimized" development. The advantage, this time, is that the trend is moving away from a single platform.
|
The bigger issue I have is with the millions of designers that are using pixels for their font sizes and pixels for their container (div/span) heights (and sometimes widths).
Not everyone can either: read small pixel fonts, or have a low-enough/high-enough resolution to properly/easily display that size as legible.
Font size (AND THEIR CONTAINERS) should be done with ems. Otherwise the website will break and look stupid (or worse be illegible) for people who have larger or smaller font sizes set to override.
example:
![[image loading]](http://i43.tinypic.com/2q89csp.jpg)
TL main website has had some icky coding for quite a long while; they don't really seem to care about it much at all, and would rather make new page headers (like the broken one pictured) than use the one they had before (what was wrong with the slightly different one from a month or two ago?).
On June 04 2013 08:57 MoonBear wrote:
What's your opinion on Trebuchet, Lucida and Tahoma then?
On June 04 2013 10:16 Torte de Lini wrote:
Bring in the Calibri!
On June 04 2013 10:22 EpiK wrote:
what about calibri? That's my personal favorite
As far as I know, those fonts tend to be exclusive to specific operating systems (sometimes specific versions of specific operating systems as well), namely Microsoft Windows. I guess now that import is supported well by all browsers you could import fonts that are not web safe, but aside from potential copyright/usage issues (unless I'm mistaken), there's still the minor issue of visitors using plugins like noscript which will block imported fonts by default (unless/until the user trusts/allows the site).
|
Fuck. Reminds me.
I love the new Segoe UI but it is absolute shit outside of Internet Explorer, which is infuriating, and to tip it off it isn't supported with Macs and there's no licensing available for it.
The look of every other font just doesn't work for me any more, which makes me rage so much. Really my last hopes are like, PT Sans or Droid Sans or Lato but they do not scale up for headers that well with the design I want. Museo Sans has the same issues.
AGHH fonts.
I welcome suggestions for good free to use sans serif fonts.
|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
On June 04 2013 14:06 Blisse wrote:
Fuck. Reminds me.
I love the new Segoe UI but it is absolute shit outside of Internet Explorer, which is infuriating, and to tip it off it isn't supported with Macs and there's no licensing available for it.
The look of every other font just doesn't work for me any more, which makes me rage so much. Really my last hopes are like, PT Sans or Droid Sans or Lato but they do not scale up for headers that well with the design I want. Museo Sans has the same issues.
AGHH fonts.
I welcome suggestions for good free to use sans serif fonts.
http://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/Cabin
http://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/Open Sans
http://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/News Cycle
|
Say no to Open Sans!
But holy shit Cabin just blew me away  tyty I will see if it works!
|
Wow, I have been working with web technology for over 10 years and I've never heard of google fonts before, that's amazing, exactly what I've needed.
|
On June 04 2013 14:26 Blisse wrote:Say no to Open Sans! But holy shit Cabin just blew me away tyty I will see if it works!
My personal favorite sans serif fonts
Droid Sans
Lato
|
Comic Sans is the way to go
|
Sweden5554 Posts
HawPig we should make browser specific css for the news templates, so good font browsers can see things in nice fonts and give boring ol' arial to chrome.
|
On June 04 2013 17:45 salle wrote:
HawPig we should make browser specific css for the news templates, so good font browsers can see things in nice fonts and give boring ol' arial to chrome.
Browser sniffing. Ick.
We need to get the W3C working on something like a "@media all and (font-looks:shitty)" query so that we can serve nice fonts to browsers that can handle them.
|
Sweden5554 Posts
On June 04 2013 18:24 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 17:45 salle wrote:
HawPig we should make browser specific css for the news templates, so good font browsers can see things in nice fonts and give boring ol' arial to chrome. Browser sniffing. Ick. We need to get the W3C working on something like a "@media all and (font-looks:shitty)" query so that we can serve nice fonts to browsers that can handle them.
Or Chrome can just like sort out their font rendering engine... it's seriously bad that the only browser that can't display google fonts well is chrome. And this has been known for a long while.
|
I work in product management @ a web development company.
My pick is Verdana, any day of the week. All browsers render it very well, its the best readable font for smartphones/iPads especially.
To be honest, theres no competition unless you want a spefic look and feel.
|
You bastards killed the font. =(
e: Wow. Is this the rendering you were talking about? It looks much, much worse on Chrome than Firefox.
|
Hyrule19144 Posts
|
On June 04 2013 20:31 salle wrote:
<style type="text/css">body, td, a, p, td.sidemenu a:link, td.sidemenu a:visited, td.sidemenu a:hover, .sf-menu a, .extramenu h1, #forummsginfo, .forummsginfo, .forumPost, #submessage, .submessage, #forummsginfoa, .forummsginfoa { font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; !important; } .forumsig, td.sidemenu a.sb_title:link, td.sidemenu a.sb_title:visited, a.sb_title:hover, #forumindex, .forumindex, .submessagea, .quote { font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; !important; }</style>
Well played, sir.
|
Monospaced fonts are the best fonts!
|
Wow, i got a headache from page 2.
|
came expecting something like the last font blog.
page one was disapointing.
page two looked promising for the future of this blog.
|
The second page of this gave me hope, the third let me down  . On the brightside, it wasn't comic sans :>.
|
never gonna give you up
TL Sans *{font-family: Comic Sans MS !important}
|
is there no css style to increase the font kerning?
not that i would ever helvetica anyways
|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
|
text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;
As for the alias and TrueType with chrome there are a million gazzilion ways to battle how chrome renders fonts.
Generally about Helvetica though I do agree.
|
Hyrule19144 Posts
god it's awful
execute and it adds a span to every individual character. Then you have to apply CSS to each character, individually, you want to modify. It's not even per general character, allowing you to set kerning for the letter "e" globally, but rather for each individual goddamn unique character.
|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On June 04 2013 20:31 salle wrote:<style type="text/css">body, td, a, p, td.sidemenu a:link, td.sidemenu a:visited, td.sidemenu a:hover, .sf-menu a, .extramenu h1, #forummsginfo, .forummsginfo, .forumPost, #submessage, .submessage, #forummsginfoa, .forummsginfoa { font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; !important; } .forumsig, td.sidemenu a.sb_title:link, td.sidemenu a.sb_title:visited, a.sb_title:hover, #forumindex, .forumindex, .submessagea, .quote { font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; !important; }</style> Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 18:24 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On June 04 2013 17:45 salle wrote:
HawPig we should make browser specific css for the news templates, so good font browsers can see things in nice fonts and give boring ol' arial to chrome. Browser sniffing. Ick. We need to get the W3C working on something like a "@media all and (font-looks:shitty)" query so that we can serve nice fonts to browsers that can handle them. Or Chrome can just like sort out their font rendering engine... it's seriously bad that the only browser that can't display google fonts well is chrome. And this has been known for a long while.
ew.
|
|
|
I actually had to uninstall Helvetica just because so many sites used it inappropriately and it looked like trash.
|
Helvetica.
The font.
The font.
The real font.
It should be supported anywhere. With best hinting.
Helvetica renders the actual, the pure glyphs.
|
|
|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
if you cant tell between a sans-serif and a serif, this discussion is pretty much not made for you lol
|
Sweden5554 Posts
On June 05 2013 05:54 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 20:31 salle wrote:On June 04 2013 18:24 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On June 04 2013 17:45 salle wrote:
HawPig we should make browser specific css for the news templates, so good font browsers can see things in nice fonts and give boring ol' arial to chrome. Browser sniffing. Ick. We need to get the W3C working on something like a "@media all and (font-looks:shitty)" query so that we can serve nice fonts to browsers that can handle them. Or Chrome can just like sort out their font rendering engine... it's seriously bad that the only browser that can't display google fonts well is chrome. And this has been known for a long while. ew.
It was a response to the guy saying he used verdana on his site.
The company I used to work for was an elearning company and we also used verdana everywhere.
It's a good font for reading on the web, but it's not good looking at all.
Right now I'm having a small crush on open sans.
|
On June 05 2013 07:34 stormtemplar wrote:
I do not understand this discussion at all. My ability to tell the different between Arial, Helvitica and Times New Roman (Which I use for word documents) is non-existent.
Helvetica and Arial are sans-serif typefaces whereas Times New Roman is a Serif Typeface: http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/03/serif-vs-sans-the-final-battle/. If you view the typefaces at 12pt or larger the difference should become clearer.
On June 05 2013 07:42 salle wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 05:54 Targe wrote:On June 04 2013 20:31 salle wrote:On June 04 2013 18:24 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On June 04 2013 17:45 salle wrote:
HawPig we should make browser specific css for the news templates, so good font browsers can see things in nice fonts and give boring ol' arial to chrome. Browser sniffing. Ick. We need to get the W3C working on something like a "@media all and (font-looks:shitty)" query so that we can serve nice fonts to browsers that can handle them. Or Chrome can just like sort out their font rendering engine... it's seriously bad that the only browser that can't display google fonts well is chrome. And this has been known for a long while. ew. It was a response to the guy saying he used verdana on his site. The company I used to work for was an elearning company and we also used verdana everywhere. It's a good font for reading on the web, but it's not good looking at all. Right now I'm having a small crush on open sans.
Salle, is there a big focus on TL being able to work without javascript?
+ Was the elearning company that you worked for a big fan of moodle by any chance?
|
I've always liked Verdana.
|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
there was a time in my life when I did too, that time is long since gone and only lasted one website design
|
On June 04 2013 20:31 salle wrote:<style type="text/css">body, td, a, p, td.sidemenu a:link, td.sidemenu a:visited, td.sidemenu a:hover, .sf-menu a, .extramenu h1, #forummsginfo, .forummsginfo, .forumPost, #submessage, .submessage, #forummsginfoa, .forummsginfoa { font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; !important; } .forumsig, td.sidemenu a.sb_title:link, td.sidemenu a.sb_title:visited, a.sb_title:hover, #forumindex, .forumindex, .submessagea, .quote { font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; !important; }</style> Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 18:24 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On June 04 2013 17:45 salle wrote:
HawPig we should make browser specific css for the news templates, so good font browsers can see things in nice fonts and give boring ol' arial to chrome. Browser sniffing. Ick. We need to get the W3C working on something like a "@media all and (font-looks:shitty)" query so that we can serve nice fonts to browsers that can handle them. Or Chrome can just like sort out their font rendering engine... it's seriously bad that the only browser that can't display google fonts well is chrome. And this has been known for a long while.
Soon, salle, soon: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=137692#c104
Blame Apple or something 
|
|
|
That's not really all that related *and* it doesn't look that great in Chrome on Windows (suffers from the same problems already discussed)
|
Sweden5554 Posts
On June 05 2013 07:50 WillS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 07:42 salle wrote:On June 05 2013 05:54 Targe wrote:On June 04 2013 20:31 salle wrote:On June 04 2013 18:24 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On June 04 2013 17:45 salle wrote:
HawPig we should make browser specific css for the news templates, so good font browsers can see things in nice fonts and give boring ol' arial to chrome. Browser sniffing. Ick. We need to get the W3C working on something like a "@media all and (font-looks:shitty)" query so that we can serve nice fonts to browsers that can handle them. Or Chrome can just like sort out their font rendering engine... it's seriously bad that the only browser that can't display google fonts well is chrome. And this has been known for a long while. ew. It was a response to the guy saying he used verdana on his site. The company I used to work for was an elearning company and we also used verdana everywhere. It's a good font for reading on the web, but it's not good looking at all. Right now I'm having a small crush on open sans. Salle, is there a big focus on TL being able to work without javascript? + Was the elearning company that you worked for a big fan of moodle by any chance?
I don't think so. The google ads require java. I think there's some other stuff that uses it too, why?
No, I must admit I've never heard of moodle until you mentioned it. The platform we used was created in house. First one used Lotus Notes, which was a horrible mess. My first job at that company was to transfer everything by hand out of Lotus Notes website, by hand, because there was no way of exporting it regularly. Then we had a 2nd custom platform which was much better. Had a tonne of features, like forum integration, dictionary, and more. (and was made in PHP/SQL)
I don't quite get why moogle would be good, perhaps it's just their own site that puts me off, (even though it's a wiki!)
|
On June 05 2013 12:40 salle wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 07:50 WillS wrote:On June 05 2013 07:42 salle wrote:On June 05 2013 05:54 Targe wrote:On June 04 2013 20:31 salle wrote:On June 04 2013 18:24 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On June 04 2013 17:45 salle wrote:
HawPig we should make browser specific css for the news templates, so good font browsers can see things in nice fonts and give boring ol' arial to chrome. Browser sniffing. Ick. We need to get the W3C working on something like a "@media all and (font-looks:shitty)" query so that we can serve nice fonts to browsers that can handle them. Or Chrome can just like sort out their font rendering engine... it's seriously bad that the only browser that can't display google fonts well is chrome. And this has been known for a long while. ew. It was a response to the guy saying he used verdana on his site. The company I used to work for was an elearning company and we also used verdana everywhere. It's a good font for reading on the web, but it's not good looking at all. Right now I'm having a small crush on open sans. Salle, is there a big focus on TL being able to work without javascript? + Was the elearning company that you worked for a big fan of moodle by any chance? I don't think so. The google ads require java. I think there's some other stuff that uses it too, why? No, I must admit I've never heard of moodle until you mentioned it. The platform we used was created in house. First one used Lotus Notes, which was a horrible mess. My first job at that company was to transfer everything by hand out of Lotus Notes website, by hand, because there was no way of exporting it regularly. Then we had a 2nd custom platform which was much better. Had a tonne of features, like forum integration, dictionary, and more. (and was made in PHP/SQL) I don't quite get why moogle would be good, perhaps it's just their own site that puts me off, (even though it's a wiki!)
Just wondering whether a server side or client side solution would be appropriate with TL for determining the client browser/OS for font rendering. I've recently had to do OS sniffing to deal with anti-aliasing fonts that contain Arabic glyphs but the code is closed source. Do you know of an open source solution that you would consider using on TL?
The only reason I really asked about moodle is a bit of an inside joke but I wanted to know if it was widely considered as useable and therefore as adopted as it is within elearning in the UK.
|
|
|
I'm all about that Verdana baby
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On June 05 2013 07:42 salle wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 05:54 Targe wrote:On June 04 2013 20:31 salle wrote:On June 04 2013 18:24 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On June 04 2013 17:45 salle wrote:
HawPig we should make browser specific css for the news templates, so good font browsers can see things in nice fonts and give boring ol' arial to chrome. Browser sniffing. Ick. We need to get the W3C working on something like a "@media all and (font-looks:shitty)" query so that we can serve nice fonts to browsers that can handle them. Or Chrome can just like sort out their font rendering engine... it's seriously bad that the only browser that can't display google fonts well is chrome. And this has been known for a long while. ew. It was a response to the guy saying he used verdana on his site. The company I used to work for was an elearning company and we also used verdana everywhere. It's a good font for reading on the web, but it's not good looking at all. Right now I'm having a small crush on open sans.
This blog makes me feel bad for only using helvetica everywhere -.-
|
Papua New Guinea1059 Posts
On the picture you provided in the OP Arial looks way better.
|
Somehow my Google Chrome browser shows nearly all text as Helvetica-Neue condensed bold. I almost threw my computer out my window but then I switched to firefox.
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
Thought this was going to be about DoctorHelvetica...
But good to know nonetheless
|
On June 08 2013 10:41 Foolishness wrote:
Thought this was going to be about DoctorHelvetica...
But good to know nonetheless
Perhaps I came too late to TL, but I rarely see him post comments wherever I am on the site. He is like the mysterious high post-count user you've barely seen. To me at least.
|
|
|
On June 08 2013 15:42 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 10:41 Foolishness wrote:
Thought this was going to be about DoctorHelvetica...
But good to know nonetheless Perhaps I came too late to TL, but I rarely see him post comments wherever I am on the site. He is like the mysterious high post-count user you've barely seen. To me at least.
about a 10k chunk of his posts are him calling me stupid in mafia games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vGihJ8D.jpg)
