[thelist] survey says...

aardvark roselli at earthlink.net
Sat Dec 28 15:01:01 CST 2002


> From: Kelly Hallman <khallman at wrack.org>
[...]
> from other sources or notes.  However, the information being conveyed
> is useful, if a little ambiguous.  The point seems threefold:
>
> First, pick common fonts when defining your styles, since many users
> might not have Eurostyle, Impact, etc.  Second, most of the fonts
> named include tuned bitmap/screen versions at the lower point sizes,
> which does greatly increase readability (compare with fonts rendered
> by outlines and fills at lower point sizes).  Lastly I think it was a
[...]

although targetting system fonts optimized for on-screen reading is
generally the best place to start... from there, you can use CSS to
cascade through more specific fonts if necessary, but many fonts
(like Impact at smaller sizes) is hard to read on screen, so they
should be used with caution...

> As a side note, serif fonts are actually faster to read than
> sans-serif!

in print, yes...

but on screen, the serifs of most fonts aren't optimized for on-
screen viewing and make the characters look muddy or distorted...

for most on-screen viewing, sans serif should be used...

--
my latest book project:
  Web Graphics for Non-Designers
  http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1904151159/evoltorg02-20
  ISBN: 1904151159






More information about the thelist mailing list