Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Re: fonts...

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: fonts...

 
 
Eustace
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2009
On 2009-10-01 23:03 closeend wrote:
> I know there are many articles and many ideas.
>
> Can You direct me to right source where I can find info what kind of
> setup will display fonts the same way on most browsers?
>
> The biggest problem seems to IE6.
>
> Below is sample which is almost working well except H fonts.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> body { margin:0; background: #7a6b51; color:#4f3915;}
>
> p { font-size: 10pt; margin:0 10px 10px 10px; line-height:1.5em;
> font-family: verdana, Arial, Georgia, Tahoma, sans-serif;; color:#4f3915;}
>
>
> H6 {font-family: "Trebuchet MS",Arial, sans-serif; font-weight: bold;
> text-align:center;}
> ...


Maybe you will find this list of 21 web-safe font families useful:

http://snipplr.com/view/15545/list-o...font-families/

emf

--
It ain't THAT, babe! - A radical reinterpretation
https://files.nyu.edu/emf202/public/.../itaintme.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2009
Eustace wrote:

> Maybe you will find this list of 21 web-safe font families useful:
>
> http://snipplr.com/view/15545/list-o...font-families/


Useful for amusement, maybe, but what is humor to a knowledgeable person can
be disinformation to others.

It's really hilarious, or horrendous, depending on whether you take it as a
joke or seriously.

To begin with, 3 of the 21 fonts listed there (Symbol, Webdings, and
Wingdings) are among the very few fonts around that are not web-safe in the
very primitive but fundamental sense that if text contains only the most
common Ascii characters (such as letters A to Z), it gets rendered
recognizably when a particular font is used on a simplistic browser that
does not know that a font lacks those characters.

Moreover, Courier is rather safe if you want to use a font that gets very
crusty in large font sizes. Arial Black is just awful for almost any use, so
it's safe if you want to make people disgusted. Comic Sans MS is not quite
as safe, since a few users may actually like it in some contexts.

And that's just the start. I bet the apparently anonymous author of the list
did not actually check what his own pages would look like in each of the 21
fonts he or she declares as "web-safe". Still less did the anonymous person
who pointlessly copied the list to another page.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Eustace
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2009
On 2009-10-04 02:54 Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Eustace wrote:
>
>> Maybe you will find this list of 21 web-safe font families useful:
>>
>> http://snipplr.com/view/15545/list-o...font-families/

>
> Useful for amusement, maybe, but what is humor to a knowledgeable person
> can be disinformation to others.
>
> It's really hilarious, or horrendous, depending on whether you take it
> as a joke or seriously.
>
> To begin with, 3 of the 21 fonts listed there (Symbol, Webdings, and
> Wingdings) are among the very few fonts around that are not web-safe in
> the very primitive but fundamental sense that if text contains only the
> most common Ascii characters (such as letters A to Z), it gets rendered
> recognizably when a particular font is used on a simplistic browser that
> does not know that a font lacks those characters.
>
> Moreover, Courier is rather safe if you want to use a font that gets
> very crusty in large font sizes. Arial Black is just awful for almost
> any use, so it's safe if you want to make people disgusted. Comic Sans
> MS is not quite as safe, since a few users may actually like it in some
> contexts.
>
> And that's just the start. I bet the apparently anonymous author of the
> list did not actually check what his own pages would look like in each
> of the 21 fonts he or she declares as "web-safe". Still less did the
> anonymous person who pointlessly copied the list to another page.


I hadn't checked the original source of the list, thanks for bringing it
to me attention. It's is true that he is anonymous - he only provides a
contact form - but his font tester (http://www.fonttester.com/) is quite
interesting though. But yes, the last 2 entries in the web-safe list
makes one wonder on what kind of experience he made it.

emf

--
It ain't THAT, babe! - A radical reinterpretation
https://files.nyu.edu/emf202/public/.../itaintme.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jan C. Faerber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2009
On Oct 4, 8:55*pm, Eustace <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> emf
>
> --
> It ain't THAT, babe! - A radical reinterpretationhttps://files.nyu.edu/emf202/public/itaintmebabe/itaintme.html


What does 'emf' stand for - It's your signature?
Like in your email adress? You chose such a beautiful name and
then 'emf'. 'e' stands for 'Eustace'? Just wondering.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Hosking
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2009
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 12:09:09 -0700 (PDT), Jan C. Faerber wrote:

> On Oct 4, 8:55*pm, Eustace wrote:
>
>> emf
>>
>> --
>> It ain't THAT, babe! - A radical reinterpretation
>> https://files.nyu.edu/emf202/public/.../itaintme.html

>
> What does 'emf' stand for - It's your signature?
> Like in your email adress? You chose such a beautiful name and
> then 'emf'. 'e' stands for 'Eustace'? Just wondering.


Study her headers. Follow the link in her sig. Read to the end of the page.

--
John
Meditate. Contemplate. Cogitate.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Eustace
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-06-2009
On 2009-10-05 16:27 John Hosking wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 12:09:09 -0700 (PDT), Jan C. Faerber wrote:
>
>> On Oct 4, 8:55 pm, Eustace wrote:
>>
>>> emf
>>>
>>> --
>>> It ain't THAT, babe! - A radical reinterpretation
>>> https://files.nyu.edu/emf202/public/.../itaintme.html

>> What does 'emf' stand for - It's your signature?
>> Like in your email adress? You chose such a beautiful name and
>> then 'emf'. 'e' stands for 'Eustace'? Just wondering.

>
> Study her headers. Follow the link in her sig. Read to the end of the page.


Thanks for checking the link. One small correction however: Eustace is a
male name, the female is Eustacia. It's quite uncommon, however, so the
mistake is not unusual.

emf

--
It ain't THAT, babe! - A radical reinterpretation
https://files.nyu.edu/emf202/public/.../itaintme.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Hosking
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-06-2009
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:49:14 -0400, Eustace wrote:

> On 2009-10-05 16:27 John Hosking wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 12:09:09 -0700 (PDT), Jan C. Faerber wrote:
>>
>>> What does 'emf' stand for - It's your signature?
>>> Like in your email adress? You chose such a beautiful name and
>>> then 'emf'. 'e' stands for 'Eustace'? Just wondering.

>>
>> Study her headers. Follow the link in her sig. Read to the end of the page.

>
> Thanks for checking the link. One small correction however: Eustace is a
> male name, the female is Eustacia. It's quite uncommon, however, so the
> mistake is not unusual.


Oops! Sorry!

--
John
With me, a mistake is *never* unusual.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jan C. Faerber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-06-2009
On Oct 6, 9:10*am, John Hosking <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Oops! Sorry!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_BZ8IGiksQ

The point is at 2 min 30 secs.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Advertisments