Verdana font. Why not?

[me]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@ex ample.invalid> wrote in message
news:3ac5f9F687 01lU1@individua l.net...[color=blue]
> me wrote:
>[color=green]
> > "Ståle Sæbøe" <othmaar@tdz.no > wrote in message
> > news:4240ce97$1 @news.broadpark .no...
> >[color=darkred]
> >> me wrote:
> >>
> >>> The reality is that millions of successful sites that enjoy
> >>> great popularity use fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts.
> >>> Wake up and smell the coffee.
> >>
> >> Mmmm coffee!
> >>
> >> me has a point, but millions of flies like shit. I think what the
> >> guys are trying to say to you, eh me eh whatever, :p is that even
> >> if trillions of successful enterprises deliver crap, it does not
> >> mean one should recommend, teach it, communicate it as good
> >> practice etc.[/color][/color]
>
> me's only point is that millions of corporate webmasters have the same
> amount of clue as he has. Well, that may be unfair. Those millions
> haven't wandered in here to learn better ways.[/color]

Maybe those web designers are happy with their current design methodology or
maybe they just don't feel like being attacked.

[snip]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I will give whatever advice I see fit.[/color]
>
> Even if everyone else disagrees with your advice? Logic would indicate
> there is something wrong here.[/color]

Let them disagree. I believe in freedom of expression. Unlike some here who
would try to deride or ridicule others into agreeing with them.

[snip]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I cater to nothing but my own muse. I will leave when I'm good and
> > ready, not before.[/color]
>
> Aha! Gauntlet hits floor![/color]

Yes, probably for the trolls and those not taking their meds.
[color=blue]
> So be prepared for someone to step in every time and tell those you
> advise that you are wrong.[/color]

I have no problem with that, you have the same right as I to express your
opinion right or wrong, it is a reality of Usenet. The difference between us
is that I have never said that my preferance for fixed font sizes and
non-fluid layout is the only "right" way or that other design methods are
"wrong". Are you done now?
Signed,
me

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

me wrote:
[color=blue]
> Are you done now?[/color]

Probably not ... <har!>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[C A Upsdell]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

Alan J. Flavell wrote:[color=blue]
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, C A Upsdell and MISSINGcupsdell XXX"TERMINATOR wrote:
>[color=green]
>>But note that there is a lot of variability in what is considered a
>>good line length: it can be 30-70 ems or so,[/color]
>
> Really? I'd have suggested body text lines to be around 35em for
> proportional fonts. A 70em line in a proportional font would have way
> too much on it, IMHO.[/color]

Yeah, I did some research into this a few months back and was surprised
to find that people could readily handle quite a wide range of line
lengths. I can't cite URLs -- I did not bother to record them -- but it
would not be hard for someone to confirm what I found.

[kaeli]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

In article <11412u5kf2lp94 b@corp.supernew s.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened
us with...[color=blue]
>
> In your browser on your monitor at your resolution etc etc etc. Are you done
> now?[/color]

Yes.

I can see now why you use the handle "me". Fitting.

--
--
~kaeli~
If the funeral procession is at night, do folks drive with
their lights off?

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[kchayka]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

me wrote:[color=blue]
>
> IMO I wouldn't set a 19" or smaller monitor higher
> than 800x600.[/color]

Gawd, you must sit 10 feet away from it to keep from going blind. Or are
you already so vision-impaired that you need everything zoomed by default?

BTW, 19" monitors often come factory set at screen size 1280x1024. I
doubt the manufacturer would use this default if it were bad for the
majority of users.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> And a large majority of 17's are at 1024x768.[/color]
>
> And I consider that a mistake but YMMV.[/color]

Your opinion on this matter doesn't change the facts, matey. People are
going to use whatever screen size on whatever size monitor they like.
And a well-designed web page will adjust gracefully to all the
variations in hardware and user prefs.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[kchayka]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

me wrote:[color=blue]
> "Ståle Sæbøe" <othmaar@tdz.no > wrote in message
> news:4240ce97$1 @news.broadpark .no...[color=green]
>>
>> trillions of successful enterprises deliver crap, it does not mean one
>> should recommend, teach it, communicate it as good practice etc.[/color]
>
> I have already addressed this point multiple times.[/color]

And your only comment on this boils down to you don't give a rat's arse
about the visitors to your sites. Not very considerate of you, is it?

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[kchayka]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

Steve Pugh wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I can't remember the last time I saw 800x600 on any size monitor.[/color]

My sister keeps her 17" monitor at 800x600, then she has all her apps
set to zoom out so text is a more tolerable size. I once suggested she
bump up the screen size, but she wouldn't hear of it. Go figure. :-\

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[me]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

"kchayka" <usenet@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:3adikaF69v bcqU1@individua l.net...[color=blue]
> me wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > IMO I wouldn't set a 19" or smaller monitor higher
> > than 800x600.[/color]
>
> BTW, 19" monitors often come factory set at screen size 1280x1024. I
> doubt the manufacturer would use this default if it were bad for the
> majority of users.[/color]

From the factory you say, no shit!
What knob, control, etc on the monitor chassis do you use to set the
resolution? I set resolution in Widows in the Properties dialog. :-0
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> And a large majority of 17's are at 1024x768.[/color]
> >
> > And I consider that a mistake but YMMV.[/color]
>
> Your opinion on this matter doesn't change the facts, matey. People are
> going to use whatever screen size on whatever size monitor they like.
> And a well-designed web page will adjust gracefully to all the
> variations in hardware and user prefs.[/color]

Then what are you whining about?
Signed,
me

[me]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

"kchayka" <usenet@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:3adil9F69v bcqU2@individua l.net...[color=blue]
> me wrote:[color=green]
> > "Ståle Sæbøe" <othmaar@tdz.no > wrote in message
> > news:4240ce97$1 @news.broadpark .no...[color=darkred]
> >>
> >> trillions of successful enterprises deliver crap, it does not mean one
> >> should recommend, teach it, communicate it as good practice etc.[/color]
> >
> > I have already addressed this point multiple times.[/color]
>
> And your only comment on this boils down to you don't give a rat's arse
> about the visitors to your sites. Not very considerate of you, is it?[/color]

In a free market system the most successful paradigm will become dominate.
The reality is that millions of successful sites that enjoy great popularity
use fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts. Obviously those sites don't feel
their doing their popularity or their visitors any harm.

I will allow you your preference for fluid designs if you will allow me my
preference for non-fluid designs and fixed fonts otherwise we must agree to
disagree. Are you done now?
Signed,
me

[Frances Del Rio]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?



Ståle Sæbøe wrote:
[color=blue]
> Steve Pugh wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>> Ah but who do you trust on matters of accessibility and usability?[/color]
>
> That is a matter of requirement specifications, but I do advocate a
> general attitude towards making web pages accessible. In some cases it
> comes down to compromise.
>[color=green]
>> According to http://www.visibone.com/font/FontResults.html 98% of
>> users have Verdana installed.[/color]
>
> Interresting statistics, thx! :)
>
> I am still not convinced Verdana is a bad font.[/color]

pls compare:

http://www.francesdelrio.com/fonts.html

to me personally at least, verdana is a much more readable font, esp at
the small sizes (pls note 11px and 10px... arial at 10px doesn't even
show the bold..)

Frances

[C A Upsdell]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

me wrote:[color=blue]
> I cater to nothing but my own muse. I will leave when I'm good and ready,
> not before.[/color]

Folks, the bottom line on this is that (a) 'me' is impossibly rigid in
his (her?) thinking, and (b) 'me' expects that he (she?) will be the
'winner' of this thread if everyone else gives up in disgust and leaves
him (her) with the last word.

People, let's just drop this thread: it has ceased to be useful to
anyone except to let 'me' rant on.

[Lauri Raittila]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.stylesheets, Frances Del Rio wrote:
[color=blue]
> pls compare:
> http://www.francesdelrio.com/fonts.html
>
> to me personally at least, verdana is a much more readable font, esp at
> the small sizes[/color]

Of course it is, if you compare it to nominally same size other fonts.
That is the core of the problem.

If you compare fonts that take similar space, the the difference is not
at all clear, and there is even some evidence that even TNR is better:

http://dsv.su.se/jpalme/internet-course/font-report.html

[color=blue]
> (pls note 11px and 10px... arial at 10px doesn't even
> show the bold..)[/color]

That is because that size is not allowed in Arial Bold.. most likely
because it would cause unreadable text.

I remade your test using 1px bigger values for Arial:

http://www.student.oulu.fi/~laurirai/www/test/fonts.html

Notice that now all texts take about same space in screen, unlike in your
orginal test. Which you think are easier to read now? I think I can read
Arial better

Lets add some line height, say 1.5

http://www.student.oulu.fi/~laurirai/www/test/fonts.html#lh15

This makes both easier to read. Difference is bigger as well, this time
Arial seems to be far more readable

This test doesn't prove anything, as there is too much subjectivity, but
maybe it illustrates why comparing nominally same sized fonts is not good
idea.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.

[Martin Bialasinski]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

Frances Del Rio <fdr58@yahoo.co m> wrote:
[color=blue]
> pls compare:
> http://www.francesdelrio.com/fonts.html[/color]

*lol* I was confused first, because I did not see any change in font
size. Until I realised this was due to me having Opera configured to
enforce a minimum font size of 14 px :-)

[Lauri Raittila]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.stylesheets, Martin Bialasinski wrote:[color=blue]
> Frances Del Rio <fdr58@yahoo.co m> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > pls compare:
> > http://www.francesdelrio.com/fonts.html[/color]
>
> *lol* I was confused first, because I did not see any change in font
> size. Until I realised this was due to me having Opera configured to
> enforce a minimum font size of 14 px :-)[/color]

I was confused at first as well, as but it was because my stylesheet made
both columns Arial....

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.

[Ståle Sæbøe]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

C A Upsdell > wrote:[color=blue]
> People, let's just drop this thread: it has ceased to be useful to
> anyone except to let 'me' rant on.[/color]
Do I get credit for starting the longest thread this month? :)