Re: Re: Correct specification of fonts

[digitect mindspring com]

> Michael Bernstein <webmaven lvcm com> wrote:
> > digitect mindspring com wrote:
> > 
> > > I usually use  > sans-serif">
> > 
> > Yikes! Double-dog-ditto my previous comments on Arial 
> for Verdana (proprietary (perhaps even MS), non-standard 
> to most Linux distributions).
> 
> While it is true that Verdana is an MS product, it is free
> (though not Free). It has the advantage of being one of the
> few high-quality typefaces specifically designed for screen
> resolutions (which increases legibility). Specifying it in
> this way IN NO WAY introduces a dependency on the typeface.
> It will simply be used preferentially if available. Anyone
> who has gone to the trouble of adding it to THEIR SYSTEM
> will appreciate the attention to detail, and those who have
> not will not have their experience degraded in any way.
> 
> I would however draw the line at stating on the site "This
> site best viewed using MS Verdana" ;-) That would be wrong
> :-)

While I appreciate the so-called "browserness" of Verdana, I find it a very wide font, which means that it spools paragraphs of text farther down the page and make navigation titles return into two lines. Again, I am very opposed to using non-standard (not to mention proprietary fonts and would hope we could use the serif or sans-serif font family instead. If we MUST use specific glyphs, I prefer:

  1. Times
  2. Helvetica
  3. Arial
  4. Tahoma (thinner than Verdana)

Steve  [ digitect mindspring com ]