Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   HTML (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f31-html.html)
-   -   The verdana 'problem'. (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t592929-the-verdana-problem.html)

Mike Barnard 02-20-2008 12:57 PM

The verdana 'problem'.
 
Hi.

Yes, before you start saying this has been done to death, it has. But
for all my reading about it I have not found a conclusion, just a list
of percieved problems.

I have googled and gone back in this group to 2003 and found lots of
discussions saying where the problems are percieved to be, Lots of
examples posted, using browsers and statistics that are years old.
Looking at some very well done sites (to my untrained and I hope
unprejudiced mind) I still see verdana used in the css.

Without going into the same old discussions, my question is...

Am I correct in thinking that the main problem with verdana is only if
the page designer reduces the body size below 100%? (This reduces
other fonts if the user doesn't have verdana, yadda yadda.) Therefore,
if I use verdana but leave the body font at 100% there really is no
problem.

Right or wrong?

And, again without the looooooong discussions please, what sans serif
font families do you put in your sites as a general rule if you don't
do verdana?

Thanks.

<fx ducks from forthcoming abuse!>

Mike.

Els 02-20-2008 01:09 PM

Re: The verdana 'problem'.
 
Mike Barnard wrote:

> Am I correct in thinking that the main problem with verdana is only if
> the page designer reduces the body size below 100%? (This reduces
> other fonts if the user doesn't have verdana, yadda yadda.) Therefore,
> if I use verdana but leave the body font at 100% there really is no
> problem.
>
> Right or wrong?


Right.

> And, again without the looooooong discussions please, what sans serif
> font families do you put in your sites as a general rule if you don't
> do verdana?


I don't use verdana anymore, but when I did, it was Arial, Helvetica,
and a Linux font that I don't remember the name of.

> Thanks.


Welcome :-)

> <fx ducks from forthcoming abuse!>


You can duck, but you can't hide :P

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/

Els 02-20-2008 01:13 PM

Re: The verdana 'problem'.
 
Els wrote:
> Mike Barnard wrote:
>
>> And, again without the looooooong discussions please, what sans serif
>> font families do you put in your sites as a general rule if you don't
>> do verdana?

>
> I don't use verdana anymore, but when I did, it was Arial, Helvetica,
> and a Linux font that I don't remember the name of.


Oops, misread the question. Read it as 'fall-back fonts'.
These days my favourite is "Trebuchet MS", with a fall-back to "Suse
Sans" and Verdana followed by Arial and Helvetica.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/

Adrian 02-20-2008 01:14 PM

Re: The verdana 'problem'.
 
Mike Barnard wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Yes, before you start saying this has been done to death, it has. But
> for all my reading about it I have not found a conclusion, just a list
> of percieved problems.
>
> I have googled and gone back in this group to 2003 and found lots of
> discussions saying where the problems are percieved to be, Lots of
> examples posted, using browsers and statistics that are years old.
> Looking at some very well done sites (to my untrained and I hope
> unprejudiced mind) I still see verdana used in the css.
>
> Without going into the same old discussions, my question is...
>
> Am I correct in thinking that the main problem with verdana is only if
> the page designer reduces the body size below 100%? (This reduces
> other fonts if the user doesn't have verdana, yadda yadda.) Therefore,
> if I use verdana but leave the body font at 100% there really is no
> problem.
>
> Right or wrong?
>
> And, again without the looooooong discussions please, what sans serif
> font families do you put in your sites as a general rule if you don't
> do verdana?
>
> Thanks.
>
> <fx ducks from forthcoming abuse!>
>
> Mike.


Why not concisely state your question?

mynameisnobodyodyssea@googlemail.com 02-20-2008 01:14 PM

Re: The verdana 'problem'.
 
On Feb 20, 12:57 pm, Mike Barnard wrote:
> Yes, before you start saying this has been done to death, it has. But
> for all my reading about it I have not found a conclusion, just a list
> of percieved problems.


I presume you added to the list of fonts the generic sans-serif
font-family:verdana, sans-serif
(sorry, I do not know what the problem is.)


Harlan Messinger 02-20-2008 01:19 PM

Re: The verdana 'problem'.
 
Mike Barnard wrote:
>
> Am I correct in thinking that the main problem with verdana is only if
> the page designer reduces the body size below 100%? (This reduces
> other fonts if the user doesn't have verdana, yadda yadda.) Therefore,
> if I use verdana but leave the body font at 100% there really is no
> problem.
>
> Right or wrong?


Well, the point is that for Verdana 100% leaves it larger than it ought
to be.
>
> And, again without the looooooong discussions please, what sans serif
> font families do you put in your sites as a general rule if you don't
> do verdana?


When it's up to me, I just put "sans-serif".

mrcakey 02-20-2008 01:23 PM

Re: The verdana 'problem'.
 
"Els" <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:4zvtnuv0ibrr.3a5l9634n7n9.dlg@40tude.net...
> Els wrote:
>> Mike Barnard wrote:
>>
>>> And, again without the looooooong discussions please, what sans serif
>>> font families do you put in your sites as a general rule if you don't
>>> do verdana?

>>
>> I don't use verdana anymore, but when I did, it was Arial, Helvetica,
>> and a Linux font that I don't remember the name of.

>
> Oops, misread the question. Read it as 'fall-back fonts'.
> These days my favourite is "Trebuchet MS", with a fall-back to "Suse
> Sans" and Verdana followed by Arial and Helvetica.
>


That's my favourite too! I fall back to Geneva then Arial/Helvetica though.
I like Tahoma for headings too.

+mrcakey



mrcakey 02-20-2008 01:29 PM

Re: The verdana 'problem'.
 
"Mike Barnard" <m.barnard.trousers@thunderin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:868or3hfoq68ikps0hvk6a2l0nrpld3oe9@4ax.com...
> Hi.
>
> Am I correct in thinking that the main problem with verdana is only if
> the page designer reduces the body size below 100%? (This reduces
> other fonts if the user doesn't have verdana, yadda yadda.) Therefore,
> if I use verdana but leave the body font at 100% there really is no
> problem.
>


Essentially yes, the main problem with Verdana (other than it's not
especially attractive) is that it's too big, which means that designers tend
to scale it down. Thing is, snipping any font down below 100% is likely to
cause readability problems for some. Some naive users may not know how to
rescale upwards. But the main problem is when the user doesn't have that
font on their system (e.g. Mac users) - the replacement font is also scaled
down and that may have been a normal size in the first place. So even more
users may have problems reading it.

If you're happy to leave it at 100% then go ahead, but the flow of your text
will look quite different in UAs where it isn't available.

+mrcakey



Els 02-20-2008 02:29 PM

Re: The verdana 'problem'.
 
mrcakey wrote:
> "Els" <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
> news:4zvtnuv0ibrr.3a5l9634n7n9.dlg@40tude.net...


>> These days my favourite is "Trebuchet MS", with a fall-back to "Suse
>> Sans" and Verdana followed by Arial and Helvetica.

>
> That's my favourite too! I fall back to Geneva then Arial/Helvetica though.


Geneva is not bad either indeed, but Trebuchet MS is present on my Mac
too, so when would you ever get to see it, if Trebuchet is your first
choice?

> I like Tahoma for headings too.


Yup, good for headings. Not so sure about body text though, a bit too
dense for my taste.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/

Andy Dingley 02-20-2008 03:01 PM

Re: The verdana 'problem'.
 
On 20 Feb, 12:57, Mike Barnard <m.barnard.trous...@thunderin.co.uk>
wrote:

> Therefore,
> if I use verdana but leave the body font at 100% there really is no
> problem.
>
> Right or wrong?


Wrong. The size will still be wrong if Verdana does come into play.

However this is now just "wrong" as in "not what was intended", rather
than "wrong" as in "not what was intended and also unreadably small".


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.