Verdana font. Why not?

[Martin!]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

Steve Pugh wrote:
[color=blue]
> Curt Balluff <post@curt-balluff.de> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>Use em or px
>>don't use pt[/color]
>
>
> px is every bit as bad as pt. Em has bugs in IE. % is the best choice.
>
> Steve
>[/color]

maybe if you want your site to be accessable by the largest possible
audience, but not many sites aim at 'everybody'.

it is also not easy to make a site 'right' for resolution varying from
mobile phone to WHUXGA, therefor people often settle for a range between
VGA and SVGA. in a small range like this font sizes can be defined with
an absolute unit without causing the site to be unreadable.

thus, what is best depends on your quality defenitions which are defined
by your audience (or client).

gr
martin

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Martin! wrote:
[color=blue]
> your test sounds very interesting, unfortunatly i dont have a 150dpi
> laptop at hand. maybe you could make some convincing screenshots of
> your test results.[/color]

This is a wind-up, isn't it?

Or don't you see the illogicality of your suggestion?

Try viewing your own display at double the normal viewing distance -
that might give you *some* idea how it would look at 150dpi. Just
taking a 150dpi screenshot, and viewing it at your usual 72dpi or
whatever it is that you've got, doesn't prove much at all.

[Martin!]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

Spartanicus wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Martin!" <martin.smidt@h ome.nl.knip.kni p.knip> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>your test sounds very interesting, unfortunatly i dont have a 150dpi
>>laptop at hand. maybe you could make some convincing screenshots of your
>>test results.[/color]
>
>
> A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical
> to a native 90PPI display :)
>[/color]

ic .. so i misunderstood some units, doesnt make screenshots of these
test less interesting.

[Spartanicus]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

Ståle Sæbøe <othmaar@tdz.no > wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>The HTML "hardcore elititst" profess that it is a useless font because
>>>it is too big compared to other fonts.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Not completely, the design of the font itself is said to promote
>readability. This is actually a kind of science and has to do with the
>actual shaping of the letters, text flow and how the eye captures it.
>The Verdana is best for the screen, Times is best on paper (or so the
>"experts" say).[/color]

The proper scientific tests that have been conducted do not confirm a
better legibility for Verdana, they do confirm that users have a certain
preference for Verdana on esthetic grounds.

--
Spartanicus

[Spartanicus]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

"Martin!" <martin.smidt@h ome.nl.knip.kni p.knip> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical
>> to a native 90PPI display :)[/color]
>
>ic .. so i misunderstood some units, doesnt make screenshots of these
>test less interesting.[/color]

You clearly are not understanding the issue.

--
Spartanicus

[Martin!]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

Spartanicus wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Martin!" <martin.smidt@h ome.nl.knip.kni p.knip> wrote:
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical
>>>to a native 90PPI display :)[/color]
>>
>>ic .. so i misunderstood some units, doesnt make screenshots of these
>>test less interesting.[/color]
>
>
> You clearly are not understanding the issue.
>[/color]

could be, if not, you can ignore my reply.
still i would be interested to 'see' an example of your test.

[Steve Pugh]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

"Martin!" <martin.smidt@h ome.nl.knip.kni p.knip> wrote:[color=blue]
>Steve Pugh wrote:[color=green]
>> Curt Balluff <post@curt-balluff.de> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Use em or px
>>>don't use pt
>>>[/color]
>> px is every bit as bad as pt. Em has bugs in IE. % is the best choice.[/color]
>
>maybe if you want your site to be accessable by the largest possible
>audience, but not many sites aim at 'everybody'.[/color]

Do you have any studies that show a strong correlation between
demographics and/or interest in a given subject and technology used to
surf the web? Or between those factors and visual acuity? Please post
the URLs.
[color=blue]
>it is also not easy to make a site 'right' for resolution varying from
>mobile phone to WHUXGA,[/color]

Yes it is.
[color=blue]
>therefor people often settle for a range between
>VGA and SVGA. in a small range like this font sizes can be defined with
>an absolute unit without causing the site to be unreadable.[/color]

The range on common desktop displays is now from about 70ppi to
150ppi. Fonts specified in pixels will hence vary by at least a factor
of two between different desktops. 9px or 12px may be very legible at
70ppi but totally unreadable at 150ppi.

Then there's the problem that Windows IE users can not resize text
sized in px without digging into the settings to disable all font
sizing.
[color=blue]
>thus, what is best depends on your quality defenitions which are defined
>by your audience (or client).[/color]

And how is the "quality definition" that states 'any visitor can read
the text on this site' ever wrong?

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > <http://steve.pugh.net/>

[Ståle Sæbøe]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

Spartanicus wrote:[color=blue]
> Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:
> Some other tests:[/color]

You do not need a test for this it is a valid logical argument. a is
smaller than b. Reduce the size of both a and b by an equal percentage.
a is still smaller than b.

There is no one who contests this here.

[Ståle Sæbøe]

Summary So far

Ståle Sæbøe wrote:[color=blue]
> The graphic design people I work with say it is their preferred font for
> web pages. The reason being that it is "kinder" to the eye both in terms
> of shape and size.[/color]
We agree that people tend to like this font for aesthetic reasons.[color=blue]
> The HTML "hardcore elititst" profess that it is a useless font because
> it is too big compared to other fonts.[/color]
This is only a problem for browsers/users that do not have/use Verdana[color=blue]
> Personally I do not care one way or the other, but I generally trust
> graphic designers more than programmers and rules lawyers when it comes
> to pure design.[/color]
Accessibility can sometimes be compromized for the sake of design.[color=blue]
> It seems to me that the only argument against using Verdana is that a
> large number of browsers do not support it and therefore it causes their
> pages to render with a very small font.[/color]
Statistics indicate that more than 90% of all users have Verdana available.

Common accessability options:
Private CSS sheet/Override styles
Quick resize with wheeled mouse (control-roll)

It seems to me that if the user absolutely does not want to see web
pages in Verdana, he can easily override it and resize his own font to
suit his needs.

[Spartanicus]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

"Martin!" <martin.smidt@h ome.nl.knip.kni p.knip> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical
>>>>to a native 90PPI display :)
>>>
>>>ic .. so i misunderstood some units, doesnt make screenshots of these
>>>test less interesting.[/color]
>>
>> You clearly are not understanding the issue.[/color]
>
>could be, if not, you can ignore my reply.
>still i would be interested to 'see' an example of your test.[/color]

A screen shot of what it looks like on a high resolution screen viewed
on a lower resolution screen would magnify the result, thereby making
the exercise pointless.

--
Spartanicus

[Martin!]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

Spartanicus wrote:[color=blue]
> "Martin!" <martin.smidt@h ome.nl.knip.kni p.knip> wrote:
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>>A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical
>>>>>to a native 90PPI display :)
>>>>
>>>>ic .. so i misunderstood some units, doesnt make screenshots of these
>>>>test less interesting.
>>>
>>>You clearly are not understanding the issue.[/color]
>>
>>could be, if not, you can ignore my reply.
>>still i would be interested to 'see' an example of your test.[/color]
>
>
> A screen shot of what it looks like on a high resolution screen viewed
> on a lower resolution screen would magnify the result, thereby making
> the exercise pointless.
>[/color]

use a camera

[Spartanicus]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

Ståle Sæbøe <othmaar@tdz.no > wrote:
[color=blue]
>You do not need a test for this it is a valid logical argument. a is
>smaller than b. Reduce the size of both a and b by an equal percentage.
>a is still smaller than b.[/color]

But by a factor of 2.
[color=blue]
>There is no one who contests this here.[/color]

You seem to argue that it's ok to loose a percentage of visitors for the
sake of esthetics. The beauty of the web is that the next service or
shop is only a few clicks away. Anyone using a web site to generate
revenue who favours their aesthetic preference over turnover is a fool.

Anyone using a website to provide information that is more or less
unique like governmental sites often has an obligation to make it
accessible to the widest possible audience.

--
Spartanicus

[kchayka]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

Curt Balluff wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Verdana, Helvetica ,sans-serif; would be my chioce for font-family.[/color]

I'm in agreement with others that Verdana is a poor choice for body
text, especially since I don't have it installed. ;) But I would drop
Helvetica from this list, too, for another reason.

My Linux distro came with multiple versions of Helvetica (Adobe, URW and
others). Mac OSX may do likewise, I don't remember. The aspect ratio
between different versions can be quite different, so at a given
font-size one may be quite readable and another not.

You, as an author, cannot know exactly which Helvetica my browser will
pick up. Best not to specify it at all.

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

[Martin!]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

Spartanicus wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Martin!" <martin.smidt@h ome.nl.knip.kni p.knip> wrote:
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>>A screenshot of a 150PPI screen displayed on a 90PPI screen is identical
>>>>>to a native 90PPI display :)
>>>>
>>>>ic .. so i misunderstood some units, doesnt make screenshots of these
>>>>test less interesting.
>>>
>>>You clearly are not understanding the issue.[/color]
>>
>>could be, if not, you can ignore my reply.
>>still i would be interested to 'see' an example of your test.[/color]
>
>
> A screen shot of what it looks like on a high resolution screen viewed
> on a lower resolution screen would magnify the result, thereby making
> the exercise pointless.
>[/color]

a photograph of your screen would maybe do the job
maybe also place a ruler before your screen, so we can see what the
actual size was.

[Dave Anderson]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

Ståle Sæbøe wrote:[color=blue]
> Steve Pugh wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> According to http://www.visibone.com/font/FontResults.html 98% of
>> users have Verdana installed.[/color]
>
>Interresting statistics, thx! :)[/color]

But what's their exact methodology for computing those numbers? A quick
look at the site didn't find any information on the subject, and the
quality of the results is critically dependent on it. I've no doubt
that the real percentage is high (probably including just about every
Windows system that exists), but without further information I'd take
the 98% value with a large grain of salt.
[color=blue]
> I am still not convinced Verdana is a bad font.[/color]

You're misstating the issue -- it's not whether Verdana is a bad font
but whether Verdana is suitable for the author to specify as the default
font for a web page.

Given that Verdana is not universally available and that its visual
properties are sufficiently different from those of most other fonts
that the page is likely to be unreadable if Verdana is not available, it
seems pretty clear to me that (except in special cases) Verdana as an
author-specified default is a bad choice.

Dave