One for the Verdana haters...

http://www.newdesigners.com/page.cfm/link=134

Unfortunately, there are no negative voting points...

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

Mark Tranchant wrote:

http://www.newdesigners.com/page.cfm/link=134

Unfortunately, there are no negative voting points...

Nothing wrong with Verdana ... just Verdana on the web when designers follow
it up with font-size: smaller then the user can read if Verdana isn't
installed.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Mark Tranchant wrote:

http://www.newdesigners.com/page.cfm/link=134
Unfortunately, there are no negative voting points...

Unfortunately? Verdana certainly is a superb typeface and no object
of hate. *Arial* is one of the most ugliest typefaces in this and
seven other parallel universes.

Evil®, however, is
body { font-size: 80% }

--
Evil® is a registered trademark of the President of the United States.
My favourite typeface is Tit-ling Capitals.

Mark Tranchant wrote:

http://www.newdesigners.com/page.cfm/link=134

Unfortunately, there are no negative voting points...

How odd. 5% of the voters actually voted for a *font* rather than some
striking designs such as that bridge, or even the WWW.

Bar stool: 0% ;-)

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Bar stool: 0% ;-)

What Dan'l Boone stepped in b'fore he kilt it.

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design, Mark Tranchant wrote:

http://www.newdesigners.com/page.cfm/link=134

Unfortunately, there are no negative voting points...

Well, I would say Verdana is best design, given these choises. Other
options are ugly and nonfuctional shelf, gimmick bridge, big beton square
(which won't be valued much 30 years later - look all those things build
in 70ies), strange bike which don't seem to have any good sides, plastic
looking chair, most ugly dome I have seen, not very special electric
appliance, www was never really designed but put together using various
hacks we still have to live with, and that bar stool doesn't look very
good...

Verdana is good for what it was designed. To look good on screen in small
sizes. It is not really good for anything else, and it is especially not
suitable for www.

What is ironic is that Verdana would make very good web font if it was
sized like TNR. (I mean by looks, not by real size.) They really made bad
choise there.



--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Support me, buy Opera:
https://secure.bmtmicro.com/opera/bu...tml?AID=882173

Lauri Raittila wrote:

What is ironic is that Verdana would make very good web font if it was
sized like TNR. (I mean by looks, not by real size.) They really made bad
choise there.

TNR is a poor choice as a goal for Verdana. The onscreen letterspacing
with TNR is atrocious (meaning the worst of all possible choices).

Verdana was introduced with Georgia... and Georgia is the font that
should have been the goal for emulating (as for size)...

I can't help but think that Verdana could be used in situations where
x-height would be specified for the sizing of Verdana and its
replacements. Verdana has a large x-height and this could rein in its
size difference.

I might do a web page trying this. Has anyone tried to compare sans
serif fonts sizes by sizing with x-height?

Thank you...

Rich

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design, SeaPlusPlus wrote:

Lauri Raittila wrote:

What is ironic is that Verdana would make very good web font if it was
sized like TNR. (I mean by looks, not by real size.) They really made bad
choise there.

TNR is a poor choice as a goal for Verdana. The onscreen letterspacing
with TNR is atrocious (meaning the worst of all possible choices).

Well, TNR actually works well in higher PPI and flat screens with clear
pixels.

Verdana was introduced with Georgia... and Georgia is the font that
should have been the goal for emulating (as for size)...

You are not getting my point, which is that Verdana 10pt should have been
about same size as Verdana 8pt is - there would be some empty space in
font somewhere, but that would be good, as Verdana needs more leading
anyway to be readable. Then it would be visually comparable to TNR, which
is and has been default font on all browsers I know that use variable
width fonts.

It would have about same effect as
font: 85%/1.4 verdana;

If we had way to specify something by x-height, there would be no
problem. It would have been very easy to solve in font level.

I can't help but think that Verdana could be used in situations where
x-height would be specified for the sizing of Verdana and its
replacements. Verdana has a large x-height and this could rein in its
size difference.

I might do a web page trying this. Has anyone tried to compare sans
serif fonts sizes by sizing with x-height?

Yes. I think I have done one as well. The problem is that there is no
reliable way to do it in real www.

Here is webpage you can use for comparison:
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~laurirai...est/fonts.html
(make sure you have good browser and all fonts)

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Support me, buy Opera:
https://secure.bmtmicro.com/opera/bu...tml?AID=882173