Site critque request plz

Spartanicus wrote:

Bernhard Sturm <sturmnixspam (AT) datacomm (DOT) ch> wrote:


If you
use a windows OS then your system has most certainly installed: Arial,
Verdana, Georgia, Times New Roman.


Verdana was first supplied with W98, Georgia afaik isn't even available
for W9x,

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...&FNAME=Georgia

according to m$ Georgia was supplied with win98 and IE4.0, and
originally released in 1996.

Verdana was released in 1996 together with IE3.0.


it's not on my system (W98+IE6+Office97 fonts). Assuming that

clients are using a certain OS is a fundamental mistake to begin with,
assuming that a client system has certain fonts installed even if they
are using a Windows OS is equally folly since users have full control
over which fonts are installed or not.

of course there are a lot of ambiguities concerning font preferences in
your font-family declaration, but you can still try to cover the most
common fonts for you and your targeted audiance purposes. As being a
webdesigner I wouldn't just give up on the fact that you don't have
control over the users preferences (but I wouldn't try to alter the
users preferences, either). That is what webdesign IMHO is: striving for
a compromise combined with the aim to get a an aesthetically appealing
result. I think this is the core problem here: design (in the sense of
aesthetics) vs. the technical highest purity. And sometimes you have to
do dirty things. Even in webdesign. This attitude is more common under
designers than engineers, and I do understand this very well. But as we
are in alt.html.critique, this goes definitely OT :-)

just one source, which most of you here would consider at leat
*controversial*: http://www.wpdfd.com/editorial/wpd0704news.htm

and just as a reference the _famous_ OS list of fonts at microsoft:
Unix, PS and GS fonts:
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fonts/unix.htm
Mac OS fonts:
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fonts/mac.htm

(and no, I am definitely NOT affiliated with Microsoft, but I wouldn't kick
them for their effort concerning screen typography)

cheers
bernhard

--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply


http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Bernhard Sturm" <sturmnixspam (AT) datacomm (DOT) ch> wrote

Verdana was released in 1996 together with IE3.0.
But is not by default installed on Windows XP pro UK.

And so it's not on my system.

Bernhard Sturm <sturmnixspam (AT) datacomm (DOT) ch> wrote:

If you
use a windows OS then your system has most certainly installed: Arial,
Verdana, Georgia, Times New Roman.

Verdana was first supplied with W98, Georgia afaik isn't even available
for W9x,

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...&FNAME=Georgia

according to m$ Georgia was supplied with win98 and IE4.0, and
originally released in 1996.

As I said it's not on my W98+IE6+Office97 fonts machine. How does
available in an additional font pack that is not installed by default
compare to your statement that "If you use a windows OS then your system
has most certainly installed: Arial, Verdana, Georgia"?

Verdana was released in 1996 together with IE3.0.

Verdana is not installed with W95, so once again you are wrong.

But as we
are in alt.html.critique, this goes definitely OT :-)

You won't get away with spouting nonsense no matter what group you post
it in.

just one source, which most of you here would consider at leat
*controversial*: http://www.wpdfd.com/editorial/wpd0704news.htm

There's nothing controversial about being plain wrong, the statement
that Georgia is a core IE font is simply nonsense.

--
Spartanicus

Spartanicus wrote:

Bernhard Sturm <sturmnixspam (AT) datacomm (DOT) ch> wrote:
As I said it's not on my W98+IE6+Office97 fonts machine. How does
available in an additional font pack that is not installed by default
compare to your statement that "If you use a windows OS then your system
has most certainly installed: Arial, Verdana, Georgia"?

I said *most* certainly. If it is not on your system, then you belong to
the part that *most* doesn't refer to ;-)
I have to rely on generalisations if I am going to design a site (I also
design my pages to fit into a 760px wide viewport, although there are
still users with 640x400 screens... I have to rely on generalisations).
So that's the trouble with statistics: *most* doesn't mean *all*
systems, and if you don't have it, your UA will at least choose your
installed 'sans serif' font (if you've got one on your system :-).
That's what compromises are.

Verdana was released in 1996 together with IE3.0.


Verdana is not installed with W95, so once again you are wrong.

hmm I said: Verdana was released in 1996. Win95 was released 1995. I
never said it came together with Win95. Read my posts. And if you check
your stats: how high is the percentage of win98/win95 users on your
sites? (here it's 0% for win95, and 0.7% with win98)

just one source, which most of you here would consider at leat
*controversial*: http://www.wpdfd.com/editorial/wpd0704news.htm


There's nothing controversial about being plain wrong, the statement
that Georgia is a core IE font is simply nonsense.

<quote>In 1996 Microsoft started to make available a range of typefaces
that we call our core fonts for the Web. The set includes Verdana (used
throughout the Salon site), Georgia, Trebuchet MS, Comic Sans MS, Andale
Mono and several other typefaces. These fonts ship with Microsoft
Internet Explorer and are available for free download from this
page.</quote>
quote taken from:
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/....aspx?NID=1659

Of course Microsoft is most of the time *plain* wrong in their own statements.
So here you go :-)

But I knew that you would call it *plain* wrong as well. Never mind, you
are coming from a technical background, and I respect that very much, as
I can see you have very profound skills. But from a desingers
perspective, the above statement is not *plain* wrong: back in 1996, Microsoft
wanted to offer fonts which were optimised for best screen readibility.
They asked Matthew Carter to design a serif and sans serif font in order
to achieve this goal. I bet you knew this already. So from a
typographical point of view the two fonts are perfect fonts. Much better
than the Times New Roman or Arial (nicer kernings, far more suitable for
on screen represenatation). Therefore Microsoft encourages designers to
use their fonts, and put them for free on their typography section, and
included them as *web core fonts* in their IE releases. A good move, as
the fonts are of a very good quality. They are the *core* fonts
Micorosoft would like to see on any machine, hence the reason why you
have Verdana included in MacOSX as well. I am bashing m$ also constantly
for their arrogant behaviour, but I have to admint, that their
introduction of those fonts was a good move (from a designers
perspective, again). So now you understand why I get upset if someone
comes and says 'avoid Verdana'. As this statement is a very 'dangerous'
one. Actually it might be a justified one, if you just look at the
technical implications of Verdana (not available on _all_ platforms,
different font size (a fact that Microsoft itself stresses out)), but from a
designers perspective: it's the font with the least 'typographical'
problems, freely available on most platforms.

--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply


http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Bernhard Sturm <sturmnixspam (AT) datacomm (DOT) ch> wrote:

As I said it's not on my W98+IE6+Office97 fonts machine. How does
available in an additional font pack that is not installed by default
compare to your statement that "If you use a windows OS then your system
has most certainly installed: Arial, Verdana, Georgia"?

I said *most* certainly. If it is not on your system, then you belong to
the part that *most* doesn't refer to ;-)

As used here "most" can only strengthen "certainly", and "certainly" has
been shown to be a false claim.

I have to rely on generalisations if I am going to design a site (I also
design my pages to fit into a 760px wide viewport, although there are
still users with 640x400 screens... I have to rely on generalisations).

Competent coders code sites that adapt to the available viewport width.

So that's the trouble with statistics: *most* doesn't mean *all*
systems

See above.

, and if you don't have it, your UA will at least choose your
installed 'sans serif' font

As a serif font, Georgia is likely to be substituted it with a serif
font when it's not available on the client system.

Like Verdana, Georgia has an inflated x-height that is disproportionate
to other fonts in the same serif|sans-serif category. The introduction
of both Verdana and Georgia hasn't "benefitted" the web as you claim,
instead they contribute significantly to the font problems we currently
encounter. The fundamental flaw with both fonts is the greater x-height,
people find this ugly, so they reduce the size. And this is where the
trouble starts, both Georgia and Verdana are bad choices when reduced in
size. This applies both as an author specified font, *and* as a user
specified font.

Using a reduced Georgia or Verdana font for normal body text will
inevitably cause the font size to become to small for a portion of
users. A site with main body text that is to small to read is a broken
web site, no aesthetic considerations justify that.

Verdana was released in 1996 together with IE3.0.

Verdana is not installed with W95, so once again you are wrong.

hmm I said: Verdana was released in 1996. Win95 was released 1995. I
never said it came together with Win95.

Is W95 not an Windows OS? Again I quote: "If you use a windows OS then
your system has most certainly installed: Arial, Verdana, Georgia"

And if you check
your stats: how high is the percentage of win98/win95 users on your
sites? (here it's 0% for win95, and 0.7% with win98)

I'm not foolish enough to think that stats are relevant or offer any
degree of accuracy.

just one source, which most of you here would consider at leat
*controversial*: http://www.wpdfd.com/editorial/wpd0704news.htm


There's nothing controversial about being plain wrong, the statement
that Georgia is a core IE font is simply nonsense.

quote>In 1996 Microsoft started to make available a range of typefaces
that we call our core fonts for the Web. The set includes Verdana (used
throughout the Salon site), Georgia, Trebuchet MS, Comic Sans MS, Andale
Mono and several other typefaces. These fonts ship with Microsoft
Internet Explorer and are available for free download from this
page.</quote
quote taken from:
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/....aspx?NID=1659

core1 kor or kör,
noun in an apple, pear, etc, the central casing containing the seeds;
the innermost or most essential part of something (also adjective); the
central part of the earth (geology); a cylindrical sample of rock, soil,
etc extracted by driving a hollow-core drill into strata; the lump of
stone or flint remaining after flakes have been struck off it
(archaeology); the part of a nuclear reactor containing the fissile
material; (also magnetic core) a small ferromagnetic ring which, either
charged or uncharged by electric current, can thus assume two states
corresponding to the binary digits 0 and 1 (computing); a solid mass of
specially prepared sand or loam placed in a mould to provide a hole or
cavity in metal casting; a computer memory made up of a series of three
rings (also core store, core memory).
verb transitive to take out the core of (an apple, etc).

(c) Larousse plc. All rights reserved

As an additional part not installed by default it clearly isn't an
"essential" part.

back in 1996, Microsoft
wanted to offer fonts which were optimised for best screen readibility.
They asked Matthew Carter to design a serif and sans serif font in order
to achieve this goal. I bet you knew this already. So from a
typographical point of view the two fonts are perfect fonts. Much better
than the Times New Roman or Arial (nicer kernings, far more suitable for
on screen represenatation).

Incorrect, as I said they "solve" and aesthetic problem by introducing a
usability problem. Usability trumps esthetics.

--
Spartanicus

Spartanicus wrote:

hmm I said: Verdana was released in 1996. Win95 was released 1995. I
never said it came together with Win95.


Is W95 not an Windows OS? Again I quote: "If you use a windows OS then
your system has most certainly installed: Arial, Verdana, Georgia"

Yeah you are right, but why didn't you then jump on me, and shouted: 'Ah
you twat, Verdana was never introduced in Windows 1.01! Gotcha! You are
just so *plain* wrong on this, because Windows 1.01 is a windows OS and
has definitely not Verdana installed!'
Where is your common sense? I am not willing to take this any further,
this is just ridiculous.

And if you check
your stats: how high is the percentage of win98/win95 users on your
sites? (here it's 0% for win95, and 0.7% with win98)


I'm not foolish enough to think that stats are relevant or offer any
degree of accuracy.

<irony>the world is a disk, as I haven't seen it as a sphere, yet. And
most of our visitors visit the sites we designed (30+ sites) with a
win95 platform.</irony>

quote>In 1996 Microsoft started to make available a range of typefaces
that we call our core fonts for the Web. The set includes Verdana (used
throughout the Salon site), Georgia, Trebuchet MS, Comic Sans MS, Andale
Mono and several other typefaces. These fonts ship with Microsoft
Internet Explorer and are available for free download from this
page.</quote
quote taken from:
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/....aspx?NID=1659


core1 kor or kör,
noun in an apple, pear, etc, the central casing containing the seeds;

Let's stop it here. If we are going to flame, because you do not agree
with microsoft on using a term not accroding to its dictionary meaning
and your understanding of it, we will never get to some constructive point.

Incorrect, as I said they "solve" and aesthetic problem by introducing a
usability problem. Usability trumps esthetics.

So, be honest to me: you are not a typographer, are you?
bernhard

--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply


http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Bernhard Sturm wrote:

Spartanicus wrote:

Is W95 not an Windows OS? Again I quote: "If you use a windows OS then
your system has most certainly installed: Arial, Verdana, Georgia"

Yeah you are right, but why didn't you then jump on me, and shouted: 'Ah
you [****], Verdana was never introduced in Windows 1.01! Gotcha! You are
just so *plain* wrong on this, because Windows 1.01 is a windows OS and
has definitely not Verdana installed!'

Is this an admission that your statement cannot be correct?

--
Ben M.

Ben Measures wrote:

Bernhard Sturm wrote:

Spartanicus wrote:

Is W95 not an Windows OS? Again I quote: "If you use a windows OS then
your system has most certainly installed: Arial, Verdana, Georgia"


Yeah you are right, but why didn't you then jump on me, and shouted:
'Ah you [****], Verdana was never introduced in Windows 1.01! Gotcha!
You are just so *plain* wrong on this, because Windows 1.01 is a
windows OS and has definitely not Verdana installed!'


Is this an admission that your statement cannot be correct?

yes it is! Thanks for having my eyes opened to see that if a font was
introduced in 1996 it cannot be included in windows 95 or windows 1.01
as I initially seem to have claimed!
*sigh*

--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply


http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Spartanicus" <me (AT) privacy (DOT) net> wrote

Bernhard Sturm <sturmnixspam (AT) datacomm (DOT) ch> wrote:

I have to rely on generalisations if I am going to design a site (I also
design my pages to fit into a 760px wide viewport, although there are
still users with 640x400 screens... I have to rely on generalisations).

Competent coders code sites that adapt to the available viewport width.

Yeah, but not to go that far... just for the 0.01% of the users, to put in
hours of work to make it look good in that small browsers..
No.. not for me... rember that todays websites have more menu's that in the
past, so those will claim more space then when the small viewpoints were
common.
Adepting your site to a smaller viewpoint can sometimes lead to less usage
of the wide viewpoint or user options on the website.
You don't want to test the viewpoint with javascript and then choise the
page people see, so adjusting is not always an option.
Take for example new flash sites, you don't want the fonts to be scalled to
that small viewpoint when by default you have 560 height.

Wouter

"Wouter" <no.spam (AT) no (DOT) mail.for.me> wrote:

I have to rely on generalisations if I am going to design a site (I also
design my pages to fit into a 760px wide viewport, although there are
still users with 640x400 screens... I have to rely on generalisations).

Competent coders code sites that adapt to the available viewport width.

Yeah, but not to go that far... just for the 0.01% of the users, to put in
hours of work to make it look good in that small browsers..

Competent coders don't spend *any* time to get their work to scale to
the user's viewport, it in fact takes effort not to let a site adapt.

No.. not for me... rember that todays websites have more menu's that in the
past,

Something tells me that you have no knowledge of "the past", or of the
present for that matter.

so those will claim more space then when the small viewpoints were
common.

So you think that PDAs and cell phones have been relegated to "the
past", curious. Next you are probably going to claim that most desktop
users use a "viewport" of 1024x768 or more.

Adepting your site to a smaller viewpoint can sometimes lead to less usage
of the wide viewpoint or user options on the website.

I'm sure there's a universe somewhere where the above can be
linguistically parsed, not this one though.

You don't want to test the viewpoint with javascript and then choise the
page people see, so adjusting is not always an option.

I'm afraid that the above requires someone from a parallel universe,
someone with access to Startrek's universal translator perhaps.

Take for example new flash sites, you don't want the fonts to be scalled to
that small viewpoint when by default you have 560 height.

But then if you multiply that with the index value derived from the
happiness root value, it comes to a totally different cardigan!

--
Spartanicus