«

I am making a site for a small business. They already have a logo and
letterhead which uses Verdana, so I should use it on the site really.

A quick web search to get the right font-family declarations threw up:

1 statements that Verdana is designed for onscreen use and is totally
readable and suitable.
2 statements that Verdana is no good as a web font because of size
issues eg it is bigger than most fonts
3 advice to not mix it with other fonts
4 advice to mix it with other fonts using it say, only for headings but
not for paras

As usual we struggle in the deluge of poor quality information off of
the internet. What are the problems with Verdana in practice?

Tim w

2012-08-24 12:26, Tim W wrote:

> I am making a site for a small business. They already have a logo and
> letterhead which uses Verdana, so I should use it on the site really.

A logo that uses Verdana? Not very imaginative. A logo is a specific
typographic form of a name or an abbreviation. How specific can Verdana be?

Just because a logo and a letterhead use Verdana doesn't mean that copy
text needs to use it.

> A quick web search to get the right font-family declarations threw up:
>
> 1 statements that Verdana is designed for onscreen use and is totally
> readable and suitable.

The first part is correct. The second part is partly subjective, partly
technology-dependent. Perhaps most importantly, Verdana looks good in
some sizes only.

> 2 statements that Verdana is no good as a web font because of size
> issues eg it is bigger than most fonts

That's basically correct.

> 3 advice to not mix it with other fonts

Debatable. Large-size Verdana in headings could be mixed with just about
anything.

> 4 advice to mix it with other fonts using it say, only for headings
> but not for paras

Yeah.

> As usual we struggle in the deluge of poor quality information off of
> the internet. What are the problems with Verdana in practice?

It wins virtually nothing in comparison with Arial. So how many
disadvantages you need?

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

In article <k17hbm$82f$>,
Tim W <> wrote:

> I am making a site for a small business. They already have a logo and
> letterhead which uses Verdana, so I should use it on the site really.
>
> A quick web search to get the right font-family declarations threw up:
>
> 1 statements that Verdana is designed for onscreen use and is totally
> readable and suitable.
> 2 statements that Verdana is no good as a web font because of size
> issues eg it is bigger than most fonts

If you need to use Verdana for a heading, go ahead. There are no
disasters awaiting you. The problems come mainly with body text. There
is no end to past discussions. Many come to mind.

<http://sbpoley.home.xs4all.nl/webmatters/verdana.html>

It is very readable and appealing enough in small screen print, there
is more spacing between the letters than many other fonts.

--
dorayme

Tim W wrote:
> I am making a site for a small business. They already have a logo and
> letterhead which uses Verdana, so I should use it on the site really.
>
> A quick web search to get the right font-family declarations threw up:
>
> 1 statements that Verdana is designed for onscreen use and is totally
> readable and suitable.
> 2 statements that Verdana is no good as a web font because of size
> issues eg it is bigger than most fonts
> 3 advice to not mix it with other fonts
> 4 advice to mix it with other fonts using it say, only for headings
> but not for paras
>
> As usual we struggle in the deluge of poor quality information off of
> the internet. What are the problems with Verdana in practice?


As others have said, the "crime" is using it and then compensating for
Verdana oversize appearance by doing:


body {
font-size: 75%; ...

because if the user does not have Verdana on their system that have to
deal with a page with microfont. A page can still be read if the font is
larger, but the reverse is not always true! I suggest selecting fonts
that are similar in appearance when selecting alternatives and ones most
users are most likely to have installed.

If downloadable fonts ever become standardize than maybe this issue will
be moot.


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012, Tim W wrote:

> What are the problems with Verdana in practice?

The main problem is something like

body {font-family: Verdana; font-size: 80%}

Do not specify a font-size for BODY or P.

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://www.alanflavell.org.uk/charse...ers-fonts.html

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:22:09 +0200, Andreas Prilop
<> wrote:

> Do not specify a font-size for BODY or P.

And whatever you do, don't let the site go live until you've clicked
ctl+ at least five times on each page.

Not everybody with money to spend has perfect eyesight. And not
everybody with perfect eyesight likes to hunch up close to the
monitor.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

In article <>,
Joy Beeson <> wrote:

> And whatever you do, don't let the site go live until you've clicked
> ctl+ at least five times on each page.

Don't forget the much sidelined ctrl-, some surprises can appear!

Anyway, there is a distinction between what happens when you zoom
under Zoom Text Only and when not under. It is amazing how often even
quite otherwise competent authors almost seem unaware of the
distinction. It is not a distinction that is evident in all browsers.

--
dorayme

Alfred Molon wrote:

> In article <k17hbm$82f$>, Tim W says...
>> What are the problems with Verdana in practice?
>
> I don't know. My site uses verdana.

http://sbpoley.home.xs4all.nl/webmatters/verdana.html

Your site also forces a too-small-for-me font size. You should use
percentages for body and content fonts: 100 of them.

http://sbpoley.home.xs4all.nl/webmatters/fontsize.html

--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high

2012-09-09 20:06, Alfred Molon wrote:

> In article <k17hbm$82f$>, Tim W says...
>> What are the problems with Verdana in practice?
>
> I don't know. My site uses verdana.

Your site http://www.molon.de/ is a good demonstration of the problems
of typical use of Verdana:
1) font set to small, fixed sizes (13px, 10px), obviusly because Verdana
looks bad in common default font sizes
2) too small line height (especially for overly long lines)
3) poor color contrast in light on dark texts (presumably caused by
author's wrong assumptions about Verdana as very readable)
4) paragraphs justified on both sides (though _this_ mistake might be
independent of Verdana).

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

2012-09-09 22:15, Alfred Molon wrote:

> It's as big as the fonts on most sites in the web.

Most sites do foolish things, with fonts too.

>> 2) too small line height (especially for overly long lines)
>
> There is no line-height parameter in CSS

You mean you don't even try to set line height, thereby accepting
whatever is the default for Verdana. And it's too small, especially for
long lines.

> Again please be more specific and explain where you see the poor colour
> contrast? When my font was #fff I received complaints that the contrast
> was too strong,

That's because people did not understand why they are having problems.
This is understandable. But _authors_ should know better. Light-color
text on dark background for copy text is simply a bad idea with bad
consequences.

>> 4) paragraphs justified on both sides (though _this_ mistake might be
>> independent of Verdana).
>
> That's a design choice, not a mistake.

A wrong choice, thereby a mistake.

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