Re: Summary So far

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Els wrote:

kchayka wrote:

Els wrote:

Then you haven't looked at my site. 100% Verdana ;-)

No, I see 100% Arial. Which is ugly, IMO.

I sometimes consider uninstalling Arial because I'm sick of looking at
it on web pages.

If you find Arial so ugly, why don't you install Verdana?

Because it is even uglier?

Or set a user stylesheet with the font you like?

First I would need to find font that I like.

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

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?ISO-8859-
1?Q?St=E5le_S=E6b=F8e?= wrote:

Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Els wrote:
Then you haven't looked at my site. 100% Verdana ;-)
http://80.202.168.171/sandbox/

Els http://locusmeus.com/

Both sites immidiately make me use alt + s, s to get Arial instead
Verdana...

Which is your prerogative. And does that make the sites look ok to you?

No, since my normal text size is best for TNR. I just didn't have
shortcut key for forcing TNR. It makes them look better...

If you had not selected any font, I would get optimal font on your site,
without needing to force anything. The problem with forcing your
preferences is that it is next to impossible force body type, and leave
everything else alone. In other words, you can't force your preferences
without causeing harm on properly done sites.

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

Lauri Raittila wrote:

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?ISO-8859-
1?Q?St=E5le_S=E6b=F8e?= wrote:
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Els wrote:
Then you haven't looked at my site. 100% Verdana ;-)
http://80.202.168.171/sandbox/

Els http://locusmeus.com/

Both sites immidiately make me use alt + s, s to get Arial instead
Verdana...

Which is your prerogative. And does that make the sites look ok to you?

No, since my normal text size is best for TNR. I just didn't have
shortcut key for forcing TNR. It makes them look better...

If you had not selected any font, I would get optimal font on your site,
without needing to force anything. The problem with forcing your
preferences is that it is next to impossible force body type, and leave
everything else alone. In other words, you can't force your preferences
without causeing harm on properly done sites.

Just to make sure I understand you correctly, Lauri: "properly done
sites" = "no font set at all" ?

If so, I disagree. I bet the most proper way to do a site for you is
to set no colour either, nor add any images that don't really mean
anything, nor make the menu stick to the left or right, and don't make
the footer's font size smaller than the body text.

How am I doing in my assumption?

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

Lauri Raittila wrote:

First I would need to find font that I like.

kchayka <usenet (AT) c-net (DOT) us> posted:

Finally, someone who understands.

Seems like I change my browser default font every month looking for that
perfect screen font. Neither Verdana nor Arial is it, of that I'm sure.
I'm not convinced there is only one, anyway. Sometimes serif is better,
sometimes sans. It depends on the content and how fatigued my eyes are.

I spent quite some time fiddling with the supplied fonts trying to find one
that was easy to read on my web browser (that was my main criteria, even
more so than looking brilliant). I settled on Georgia, for Windows.
Unfortunately its weight does waste toner while printing, so I'll probably
configure that differently.

I have my own "sore eyes" CSS file to override some websites awful ideas
about what's readable, I apply it when I read a page that makes my eyes
hurt. It makes *all* text the same size (the size I find it easy to read
with), the exception being that headings are a bit bigger than the other
text. It also kills the background and foreground colours, and adjusts the
line spacing. What were web browser authors thinking of when they squashed
the lines closer together than normal? Apart from being harder to read, as
soon as you use characters with accents, etc., they either overlap the line
above, or shove those lines of text further apart than the rest of the
document.

But, in summary, ease of reading depends on a combination of factors:

Font design (it's style, if you like)
Font aspect ratio
Font size
Font weight
Inter-character spacing
Inter-line spacing
Colours

Get them all right, which only I can do for myself, and I find reading to
be a breeze. Get only one of them only a small bit out of kilter, and it
makes reading a lot harder. While that may not be very significant for a
small page, it is for long pages, or where you've spent a long time reading
many pages.

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Els wrote:

Lauri Raittila wrote:

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?ISO-8859-
1?Q?St=E5le_S=E6b=F8e?= wrote:
Lauri Raittila wrote:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Els wrote:
Then you haven't looked at my site. 100% Verdana ;-)
http://80.202.168.171/sandbox/

Els http://locusmeus.com/

Both sites immidiately make me use alt + s, s to get Arial instead
Verdana...

Which is your prerogative. And does that make the sites look ok to you?

No, since my normal text size is best for TNR. I just didn't have
shortcut key for forcing TNR. It makes them look better...

If you had not selected any font, I would get optimal font on your site,
without needing to force anything. The problem with forcing your
preferences is that it is next to impossible force body type, and leave
everything else alone. In other words, you can't force your preferences
without causeing harm on properly done sites.

Just to make sure I understand you correctly, Lauri: "properly done
sites" = "no font set at all" ?

Yes. For body text, that is. For other text, it doesn't really matter
what you use. (with body text I don't mean all text in body element, but
all text that makes core of content.)

About Verdana, well, I would not use it for anything. But for heading it
is OK for accessibility and usability viewpoints.

If so, I disagree. I bet the most proper way to do a site for you is
to set no colour either,

No. I would only suggest that do not set body text background to white
(if you specify it, use suitable off-white light colour), and text color
should be very near to black. I have yet to see easily readable site with
inverse colors, but it might be possible as well, but it is more likely
conflict with userstylesheet.

To other elements in page, use whatever colors you like.

Links should blue if possible, while visited should be that purple. But
link colors are not that important

nor add any images that don't really mean anything,

Yes, but I would only count fully transparent images in that category.
There is n+1 pages still out there using good old 1px transparent
images...

nor make the menu stick to the left or right,

Yes, it is better, if you can make it move around by size of window, or
not include it at all. But it is not usually too bad thing, *if* it does
not confuse user. The content of menu is more important than where it is
located in page.

and don't make the footer's font size smaller than the body text.

Rather, don't put any irrelevant information to footer (like legal
statements, copyright, etc. first you might need if you are based in US
or other country with idiotic justice system...)

I would assume that sooner or later soe nice US citizen makes end of
smaller size footer tradition by going to court and saying he was not
able to see it...

How am I doing in my assumption?

Near, but you would end up with boring site...

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

Lauri Raittila wrote:

In other words, you can't force your preferences
without causeing harm on properly done sites.

[snip assumption of Lauri's preferences for site styles]

How am I doing in my assumption?

Near, but you would end up with boring site...

LOL

At least one thing we agree on <g>

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

Lauri Raittila wrote:

Yes. For body text, that is. For other text, it doesn't really matter
what you use. (with body text I don't mean all text in body element, but
all text that makes core of content.)

For body text I maintain that serif fonts only, should be suggested.
This is for readability and that is the whole idea of the body text...
it is to be read!!!

About Verdana, well, I would not use it for anything. But for heading it
is OK for accessibility and usability viewpoints.

True headings could be sans-serif and Verdana lends itself nicely to
application.

No. I would only suggest that do not set body text background to white
(if you specify it, use suitable off-white light colour), and text color
should be very near to black. I have yet to see easily readable site with
inverse colors, but it might be possible as well, but it is more likely
conflict with userstylesheet.

This is all true and BTW correct also... ;-)

Links should blue if possible, while visited should be that purple. But
link colors are not that important

Links should be the same black. Links should be indicated by an
underline. Underlines have no typographic use so work VERY well as a
link indicator. The color of the text for links should be the same as
the text, again, for readability. Also... visited links of a different
color is a big waste... IMMHO...

And finally, DO NOT USE VERDANA FOR BODY... the critics will cry...
"It's too big... WAAAAH!!!" ;-)

Thank you...

Rich

Lauri Raittila wrote:

Seems like I change my browser default font every month looking for that
perfect screen font. Neither Verdana nor Arial is it, of that I'm sure.
I'm not convinced there is only one, anyway. Sometimes serif is better,
sometimes sans. It depends on the content and how fatigued my eyes are.

Tim wrote:

I spent quite some time fiddling with the supplied fonts trying to find one
that was easy to read on my web browser (that was my main criteria, even
more so than looking brilliant). I settled on Georgia, for Windows.
Unfortunately its weight does waste toner while printing, so I'll probably
configure that differently.

Georgia is an excedllent choice for the screen it is highly readable. My
body CSS is...
(font: medium Georgia, serif

The correct print font would be Times New Roman this is the font
optimazed over many many years for print media. My body print CSS is...
(font: 10.5pt normal "Times New Roman", serif

I have my own "sore eyes" CSS file to override some websites awful ideas
about what's readable, I apply it when I read a page that makes my eyes
hurt. It makes *all* text the same size (the size I find it easy to read
with), the exception being that headings are a bit bigger than the other
text. It also kills the background and foreground colours, and adjusts the
line spacing. What were web browser authors thinking of when they squashed
the lines closer together than normal? Apart from being harder to read, as
soon as you use characters with accents, etc., they either overlap the line
above, or shove those lines of text further apart than the rest of the
document.

But, in summary, ease of reading depends on a combination of factors:

Font design (it's style, if you like)
Font aspect ratio
Font size
Font weight
Inter-character spacing
Inter-line spacing
Colours

Get them all right, which only I can do for myself, and I find reading to
be a breeze. Get only one of them only a small bit out of kilter, and it
makes reading a lot harder. While that may not be very significant for a
small page, it is for long pages, or where you've spent a long time reading
many pages.

Emulate the look and feel of a book and you'll not be far from the 'ideal'.

Thank you...

Rich

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, SeaPlusPlus wrote:

Lauri Raittila wrote:

Yes. For body text, that is. For other text, it doesn't really matter
what you use. (with body text I don't mean all text in body element, but
all text that makes core of content.)

For body text I maintain that serif fonts only, should be suggested.
This is for readability and that is the whole idea of the body text...
it is to be read!!!

But on low res, serifs are quite hard to read. So that is not good
advice. On resolution about 120ppi I find serif easier. For 96ppi, I
don't really know. For 72ppi, sans-serif is better. For me. (And I use
96ppi... I keep changing font when reading something...)

People usually prefer sans-serif, but I think I have read about study,
that proved that serifs were as good on normal size. But tiny serif fonts
are killer. So if you ever change font size to smaller, make it as sure
as possible that user won't get serif font.

Links should blue if possible, while visited should be that purple. But
link colors are not that important

Links should be the same black.

No, links should not be black. Black is least likely link color, so even
underlining might not make it apparent.

The color of the text for links should be the same as
the text, again, for readability.

No, it should be different, to make it clear it is link. If it is too
hard to read, problem might be too long link text. Or unsuitable link
color. Links are very important, and should stand out.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040510.html

Also... visited links of a different
color is a big waste... IMMHO...

Visited links must be in different color. Visited link is higly useful
indicator. You might use black here, but it might confuse.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040503.html


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

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, SeaPlusPlus wrote:

Lauri Raittila wrote:

Seems like I change my browser default font every month looking for that
perfect screen font. Neither Verdana nor Arial is it, of that I'm sure.
I'm not convinced there is only one, anyway. Sometimes serif is better,
sometimes sans. It depends on the content and how fatigued my eyes are.

Tim wrote:

I spent quite some time fiddling with the supplied fonts trying to find one
that was easy to read on my web browser (that was my main criteria, even
more so than looking brilliant). I settled on Georgia, for Windows.
Unfortunately its weight does waste toner while printing, so I'll probably
configure that differently.

Georgia is an excedllent choice for the screen it is highly readable.

Have you measured it? I find it harder to read than similar size TNR.

The correct print font would be Times New Roman this is the font
optimazed over many many years for print media. My body print CSS is...
(font: 10.5pt normal "Times New Roman", serif

I would use 11pt, or maybe even bigger, depending on content, and bigger
line height. 1.2 is quite little with typical A4 print width.

I have my own "sore eyes" CSS file to override some websites awful ideas
about what's readable, I apply it when I read a page that makes my eyes
hurt. It makes *all* text the same size (the size I find it easy to read
with), the exception being that headings are a bit bigger than the other
text.

I have similar stylesheet. Well, actually I have 3 different ones, big
with TNR, normal with Arial, Small with Arial.

It also kills the background and foreground colours, and adjusts the
line spacing.

I do background stuff in different stylesheet.

What were web browser authors thinking of when they squashed
the lines closer together than normal? Apart from being harder to read, as
soon as you use characters with accents, etc., they either overlap the line
above, or shove those lines of text further apart than the rest of the
document.

You usually see that when you override font size, and site has specified
1 for line-height...

But, in summary, ease of reading depends on a combination of factors:

Font design (it's style, if you like)
Font aspect ratio
Font size
Font weight
Inter-character spacing
(Kerning)
Inter-line spacing
Colours

Width of column (this is closely related to line-height)
Good sized paragraphs

Get them all right, which only I can do for myself, and I find reading to
be a breeze. Get only one of them only a small bit out of kilter, and it
makes reading a lot harder. While that may not be very significant for a
small page, it is for long pages, or where you've spent a long time reading
many pages.

Yes.

Emulate the look and feel of a book and you'll not be far from the 'ideal'.

Exept, that in WWW, you can overcome biggest problem of book - the
unability to have different properties people that need them. And other
users get tested default. And you don't have to do anything.


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