Typeface selection in CSS

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell (AT) ph (DOT) gla.ac.uk> wrote:

I'm sure it's a perfectly fine choice for an individual to make in the
privacy of their own browser, and at a size of their choosing

User setting: Verdana reduced in size by a factor Y.

Sorry, that doesn't rhyme. The user's choice is the user's choice.
It isn't "reduced" by anything. Sure: it's likely to be a smaller
choice than they would have made if they'd used some other font. But
it's still their choice.

You're right. Another attempt: Authors often specify a size reduction of
Verdana based on the usual pre configured browser serif font, often TNR
@ 16px. Configuring Verdana as the user preferred font @ a smaller size
like 13px therefore results in microfonts for the user on such sites if
no additional measures are taken.

That conflicts with your unreserved endorsement of Verdana as a user
font. Verdana causes as much or more difficulties when used as a user
font.

Author setting: Verdana reduced in size by a factor Y.

User's defence: the minimum font size setting (in a good browser)

That possible option does not nullify the drawbacks that result from
using Verdana, if it did then you'd might as well say that there are no
issues with author suggested reduced Verdana body fonts.

Using Verdana as the user font with a minimum font size setting on the
www often causes it's own set of problems like text breaking out of it's
container, or overlapping text, even on relatively well coded sites,
example: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/spartanicus/verdana_trouble.png

, or
the "ignore author font settings" in the operating system component
that thinks it's a web browser.

That causes even more problems on www sites than using Verdana as a user
font with a minimum font size.

Leaving the browser's font setting at the pre configured serif font
prevents these problems. This is why it's imo bad form to simply advise
users to configure their browser font and size to something they like.

Many find TNR and most other serif fonts not pleasant to read on
screen @ the typical body text size.

Things are slowly improving. Some years back we could confidently say
that although, on a nicely printed page, serif fonts were acknowledged
to be better, nevertheless on a computer screen the greater
readability of sans fonts at low resolution meant that they were the
natural choice for screen display.

But considerable improvements have been made both in display
resolution and in rendering technology, so it's undergoing a
changeover, the way that it seems to me.

Increasing screen resolution causes yet more issues. Current mainstream
OSs use bitmapped UI widgets, these shrink on a higher resolution
screen. As a result the number of screens on the market with a
resolution higher than ~100PPI is very limited. I've used a 148PPI
laptop, using it was a royal pain due to this problem.

If by "improvement rendering technology" you are referring to anti
aliasing of fonts, this can only be achieved by enlarging the text. It
may look nice, but at the expense of efficient use of screen real
estate. I continue to prefer the smaller non anti aliased normal text
and UI fonts used by Windows systems to the bigger anti aliased fonts
that can be generated by for example Linux.

--
Spartanicus

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:07:42 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<flavell (AT) ph (DOT) gla.ac.uk> wrote:

The puzzle is this. Those folks keep claiming that IE users browse in
fullscreen mode, but I've never seen an IE installation that wasn't
windowed at installation time.

And when I'm forced to use IE (on school computers) I can never get
it to display full screen. Even if I enlarge the initial window,
subsequent windows open in less than full screen.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"I feel a wave of morning sickness coming on, and I want to
be standing on your mother's grave when it hits."

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Spartanicus wrote:

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell (AT) ph (DOT) gla.ac.uk> wrote:

I'm sure it's a perfectly fine choice for an individual to make in the
privacy of their own browser, and at a size of their choosing
[..]
Authors often specify a size reduction of
Verdana based on the usual pre configured browser serif font, often TNR
@ 16px. Configuring Verdana as the user preferred font @ a smaller size
like 13px therefore results in microfonts for the user on such sites if
no additional measures are taken.

That conflicts with your unreserved endorsement of Verdana as a user
font.

"Unreserved"? Let's not go overboard ;-) I haven't chosen it
myself...

But I'm sure it's a perfectly fine choice for an individual to make in
the privacy of their own browser, and *at a size of their choosing*

Verdana causes as much or more difficulties when used as a user
font.

There can be knock-on effects if the author's sizing leaks through,
it's true.

[...]

the "ignore author font settings" in the operating system component
that thinks it's a web browser.

That causes even more problems on www sites than using Verdana as a
user font with a minimum font size.

Often because the author was trying to impose a fixed layout instead
of adapting to flexible design. Well, that may mean having to disable
yet more of the author's style for successful results. Some
over-designed sites are actually easier to use on Lynx than on the
author's intended browser.

But considerable improvements have been made both in display
resolution and in rendering technology, so it's undergoing a
changeover, the way that it seems to me.

Increasing screen resolution causes yet more issues.

Indeed it does, but solutions are inevitable, since the problem is
increasingly widespread. MS already offers a half-cocked solution
with lots of ifs and buts - presumably they'll be improving it over
time.

Current mainstream OSs use bitmapped UI widgets, these shrink on a
higher resolution screen. As a result the number of screens on the
market with a resolution higher than ~100PPI is very limited. I've
used a 148PPI laptop, using it was a royal pain due to this problem.

As one data point, my office PC works at about 135dpi.

But font size (on a www-compatible browser) isn't the same as
bitmapped images and widgets. Of course I'm assuming that a competent
web designer would be sizing text in em or % units, not in px or pt
units or equivalent.

If by "improvement rendering technology" you are referring to anti
aliasing of fonts,

primarily - and hinting (I'm no expert in font technologies)

this can only be achieved by enlarging the text.

At higher dpi values, a given displayed size of text will have a
higher resolution, that's the point.

cheers

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell (AT) ph (DOT) gla.ac.uk> wrote:

That conflicts with your unreserved endorsement of Verdana as a user
font.

"Unreserved"? Let's not go overboard ;-) I haven't chosen it
myself...

"perfectly fine choice" with no mention of the problems that are likely
to result from that choice sounds like an unreserved endorsement to me.

But I'm sure it's a perfectly fine choice for an individual to make in
the privacy of their own browser, and *at a size of their choosing*

Not if that choice of size is anything less than what the user would
chose for a serif font. Verdana is a "perfectly fine choice" as an
author font also, provided that it isn't sized at anything less than
100%, but we all know that people rarely do that. A similar thing
happens when users configure Verdana as a user font.

But considerable improvements have been made both in display
resolution and in rendering technology, so it's undergoing a
changeover, the way that it seems to me.

Increasing screen resolution causes yet more issues.

Indeed it does, but solutions are inevitable, since the problem is
increasingly widespread.

The topic was most people finding serif fonts not pleasant to look at on
the average screen, that issue isn't on the increase.

MS already offers a half-cocked solution
with lots of ifs and buts - presumably they'll be improving it over
time.

What are you trying to achieve with this obscurity?

Current mainstream OSs use bitmapped UI widgets, these shrink on a
higher resolution screen. As a result the number of screens on the
market with a resolution higher than ~100PPI is very limited. I've
used a 148PPI laptop, using it was a royal pain due to this problem.

As one data point, my office PC works at about 135dpi.

That's most unusual if it's not a laptop.

People using CRT monitors often calculate the PPI value based on a the
physical screen dimensions and the desktop screen area setting in the
OS. It's easy to make a mistake with that calculation since the
resolution of a CRT has an upper limit imposed by the granularity of the
phosphor clusters.

But font size (on a www-compatible browser) isn't the same as
bitmapped images and widgets.

No-one is claiming that it is, you suggested that screen resolution was
increasing and that therefore the problem of displaying serif fonts @
body size was getting better. I see no substantial increase in screen
resolution (in PPI) in new screens. I pointed out that current OSs using
fixed size bitmapped widgets is one of the reasons why.

--
Spartanicus

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Spartanicus wrote:

Increasing screen resolution causes yet more issues.

Indeed it does, but solutions are inevitable, since the problem is
increasingly widespread.

The topic was most people finding serif fonts not pleasant to look at on
the average screen, that issue isn't on the increase.

I'd argue that "the average screen" is not a constant. It's evolving.
What my little great-niece uses today is far better than what I used
myself professionally some years ago.

MS already offers a half-cocked solution
with lots of ifs and buts - presumably they'll be improving it over
time.

What are you trying to achieve with this obscurity?

Are you asking for a link?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/overview/highdpi.asp

"Adjusting Scale for Higher DPI Screens"

As one data point, my office PC works at about 135dpi.

That's most unusual if it's not a laptop.

A professional 17inch CRT display, set to 1600x1200

This is quite a normal setting around here (not imposed by me - chosen
by our users).

People using CRT monitors often calculate the PPI value based on a
the physical screen dimensions and the desktop screen area setting
in the OS.

I'm talking about increments of the display system as measured against
an actual physical ruler (and confirmed by the calibration in the OS).

It's easy to make a mistake with that calculation since the
resolution of a CRT has an upper limit imposed by the granularity of the
phosphor clusters.

If there's any "mistake" here it's a misunderstanding about the terms
in use. Read on...

No-one is claiming that it is, you suggested that screen resolution
was increasing and that therefore the problem of displaying serif
fonts @ body size was getting better.

There was a time when most people seemed to have their displays set at
around 72dpi. This is rarely the case now, I think it's fair to say.

Standard TFTs seem to be made for about 95dpi, but as you've said
yourself, there are some which are signficantly higher (albeit you say
you only met them on laptops).

There are indeed two effects, one is the user-chosen display setting
(which is primarily what I was talking about at the time) and the
other, as you rightly point out, is the inherent resolution of the
display itself. Both of them contribute to the final effect. Sure,
there are differences between CRTs and TFTs. With TFTs I'd normally
set to the inherent resolution of the display. With CRTs there's no
harm (and we perceive some benefit) in setting the display system to
somewhat higher values than the inherent physical resolution.

I see no substantial increase in screen resolution (in PPI) in new
screens.

Not that I would take MS's word as gospel, but they evidently thought
it was important enough to implement some kind of a solution, as
already mentioned.

Fortunately, with flexible design techniques, much of this variability
can take care of itself. The only losers are those who continue to
insist that they have to control the final result so hard that it
hurts.

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell (AT) ph (DOT) gla.ac.uk> wrote:

Increasing screen resolution causes yet more issues.

Indeed it does, but solutions are inevitable, since the problem is
increasingly widespread.

The topic was most people finding serif fonts not pleasant to look at on
the average screen, that issue isn't on the increase.

I'd argue that "the average screen" is not a constant. It's evolving.
What my little great-niece uses today is far better than what I used
myself professionally some years ago.

MS already offers a half-cocked solution
with lots of ifs and buts - presumably they'll be improving it over
time.

What are you trying to achieve with this obscurity?

Are you asking for a link?

Did you expect anyone to know what you were talking about based on what
you wrote?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/overview/highdpi.asp

"Adjusting Scale for Higher DPI Screens"

The above referenced MS method only to some extent affects the content
displayed in a web browser viewport. The issues resulting from higher
resolution screens affect everything displayed on screen, which is why I
brought up OS UI widgets. It is an issue that needs to be tackled by the
OS, not by individual applications, and certainly not just for their
document rendering space. Tackling the issue definitively would require
a fundamental change in the way that UI widgets are defined and
rendered.

As one data point, my office PC works at about 135dpi.

That's most unusual if it's not a laptop.

A professional 17inch CRT display, set to 1600x1200

This is quite a normal setting around here (not imposed by me - chosen
by our users).

People using CRT monitors often calculate the PPI value based on a
the physical screen dimensions and the desktop screen area setting
in the OS.

I'm talking about increments of the display system as measured against
an actual physical ruler (and confirmed by the calibration in the OS).

A "calibration in the OS" cannot reliably establish the actual
resolution of a CRT viewing device since it does not take into account
the granularity of the phosphor clusters.

Most, if not all CRT monitors can handle screen area settings that
exceed the capability of the CRT by a considerable margin.

It's easy to make a mistake with that calculation since the
resolution of a CRT has an upper limit imposed by the granularity of the
phosphor clusters.

If there's any "mistake" here it's a misunderstanding about the terms
in use. Read on...

No-one is claiming that it is, you suggested that screen resolution
was increasing and that therefore the problem of displaying serif
fonts @ body size was getting better.

There was a time when most people seemed to have their displays set at
around 72dpi. This is rarely the case now, I think it's fair to say.

Standard TFTs seem to be made for about 95dpi, but as you've said
yourself, there are some which are signficantly higher (albeit you say
you only met them on laptops).

There are indeed two effects, one is the user-chosen display setting
(which is primarily what I was talking about at the time) and the
other, as you rightly point out, is the inherent resolution of the
display itself. Both of them contribute to the final effect. Sure,
there are differences between CRTs and TFTs. With TFTs I'd normally
set to the inherent resolution of the display. With CRTs there's no
harm (and we perceive some benefit) in setting the display system to
somewhat higher values than the inherent physical resolution.

There is no inherent physical resolution for CRT monitors, they have a
*maximum* resolution imposed by the CRT. If the screen area setting is
lower than that maximum value, then that is the resolution you get.

There most definitely is harm in setting the screen area setting at a
value beyond what the CRT can display, information is lost when you do
that. This may not be apparent by judging the result on esthetics, in
fact it may even appear to be more pleasing to the eye, but you are
deluding yourself.

I see no substantial increase in screen resolution (in PPI) in new
screens.

Not that I would take MS's word as gospel, but they evidently thought
it was important enough to implement some kind of a solution, as
already mentioned.

Fortunately, with flexible design techniques, much of this variability
can take care of itself.

The issue of considerable variations in screen resolution has a profound
effect not only on the requirements for OS UI widgets, but on all
current bitmapped resources including bitmapped web content. This
potential issue will not "take care of itself".

If by "flexible design techniques" you are referring to variations in
user viewport size and that content should adapt to it, then this is an
entirely different topic.

--
Spartanicus

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Spartanicus wrote:

Did you expect anyone to know what you were talking about based on
what you wrote?

In the context of "one data point" it seemed as much as I needed.
The topic as far as I was concerned was to illustrate the fact that
displays are improving with time. Not to discuss in detail one
person's particular browsing habits, which is what this thread seems
to have degenerated into (apologies to other readers...)

A "calibration in the OS" cannot reliably establish the actual
resolution of a CRT viewing device

I'm not talking about its optical resolution, but the number of
increments of display co-ordinate per inch on the screen. This can be
(and in this case is) calibrated, with a ruler.

since it does not take into account
the granularity of the phosphor clusters.

Quite. That was not part of my "one data point".

There most definitely is harm in setting the screen area setting at a
value beyond what the CRT can display, information is lost when you do
that. This may not be apparent by judging the result on esthetics, in
fact it may even appear to be more pleasing to the eye, but you are
deluding yourself.

Thank you for this interesting lecture.

Incidentally, I've been noticing increasingly that when I have
authors' styles enabled, they're tending more and more to propose
serif fonts, which in earlier times was rare. While I've often been
the first to complain about misguided choices by designers, this does
seem to convey some kind of message.

The bottom line, what I wanted to illustrate in this thread, was that
some of the details that one took for granted some years back may need
to be reconsidered in the light of the current situation. My
impression is that this particular issue is about ready for a
turnover, which is more or less what I said before. As it happens, I
still have a sans font configured myself as default (this one here is
Lucida Sans Unicode), I'm just making the point that a serif font is
not necessarily wrong, and soon may well be taken for granted just as
it is in paper publishing.

But whatever you say, I persist in my assertion that the user's own
choice of font is by definition their choice, and as authors it's our
job to work with that. If they choose Verdana then that's perfectly
fine by me, I see no reason to argue with them about it, but of course
they'll also need to choose their preferred size, and protect that
choice from inappropriate interference from other sources. If the
design then falls apart, it's not the user's fault.

The known problems with Verdana, as illustrated on Poley's
demonstration page, relate to authoring choices, not to user
choices - http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

An improved version of font-size-adjust would offer a possible
resolution of that issue, but instead of improving a flawed start,
most browser implementers ignored it entirely, and now the W3C have
taken it away altogether.

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell (AT) ph (DOT) gla.ac.uk> wrote:

The topic as far as I was concerned was to illustrate the fact that
displays are improving with time.

You specifically brought up resolution, the best CRT models provide
~0.24mm dot pitch, this hasn't changed in over a decade. A dot pitch of
0.24mm translates into a maximum obtainable resolution of 106PPI.

Flat panel displays are available in higher resolutions, they are almost
exclusively found in a few niche laptops. Any significant increase
cannot be summed up as an "improvement" given the new issues the higher
resolution introduces.

I'm just making the point that a serif font is
not necessarily wrong

I mentioned a particular issue with regard to serif fonts, but I did so
in a way that defies a binary right/wrong classification.

But whatever you say, I persist in my assertion that the user's own
choice of font is by definition their choice, and as authors it's our
job to work with that. If they choose Verdana then that's perfectly
fine by me, I see no reason to argue with them about it, but of course
they'll also need to choose their preferred size, and protect that
choice from inappropriate interference from other sources.

The last addition is a rather crucial one, and very difficult to convey
to the average user given the new issues that such a counter measure is
likely to introduce.

If the design then falls apart, it's not the user's fault.

Certainly, but it is something the user will be confronted with. This is
fine as long as the user has made in informed choice, few are likely to
given the complexity of the issue.

The known problems with Verdana, as illustrated on Poley's
demonstration page, relate to authoring choices, not to user
choices - http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

The understanding that similar issues exists with Verdana as a user font
are less well understood by fewer people. That doesn't mean that no such
issue exists.

An improved version of font-size-adjust would offer a possible
resolution of that issue, but instead of improving a flawed start,
most browser implementers ignored it entirely,

I'm not aware of any implementation of the font-size-adjust property.

and now the W3C have taken it away altogether.

It's only removed from CSS 2.1 because one of 2.1's stated purposes is
that it should better reflect what has actually been implemented.

Font-size-adjust is back as part of CSS3, taken verbatim from the 2.0
spec afaik.

--
Spartanicus