I feel that no other font can compare, it's the best to read bolded and is the most attractive.
Well, I much prefer Georgia for reading. Trebuchet is nice but it only works on some sites in my opinion. Other than that, Helvetica is nice too (not really that good for the web, but, alas, I'm not an Arial hater either), though I still think Serif typefaces are better for long text. I am a bookworm though and most books are written with a Serif typeface, so it may also depend on what your eyes are used to.
I do agree, however, that Trebuchet is quite nice. It's just not a typeface I would choose often for body text.
I forgot about Georgia as a serif font, that's been my other choice and I think 'Palatino Lynotype' is one I've used a few times and it came close to Georgia.
Palatino is not a safe font to use because it is only pre-installed on Windows. Mac OS X no longer includes Palatino. Ubuntu doesn't have Palatino installed either but an equivalent by the name of Palladio by URW, if I'm correct.
And won't show on any browser that isn't on a windows machine. Why do you want to impose your likes and dislikes on visitors anyway? I prefer bitstream-vera-sans and have that as my browser default font. Why do you want to annoy me by overriding my, perhaps quioxit, preference?
For the 10,000th time, THE WEB IS NOT PAPER dammit.
Palatino Linotype is equivalent to Book Antiqua. I don't know anything about the availability of the latter though.
Having said that, I rarely use anything other than "serif", "sans-serif" and "monospace" for any site I develop.
Mac OS X users do see Trebuchet MS in browsers. It's a standard Mac OS X font, it's not only on Windows machines.
That's my practice, too, and I wonder if I'm going too far mandating sans-serif fonts for the base font family. I mean if someone really likes serif fonts I wonder if I should contradict that preference.
Edit: well actually, come to think of it, I also usually specify georgia for H1 through H6, because I really do rather like it as a serif font,
Some layouts naturally lend themselves to sans-serif fonts, others swing the other way. I take it on a case-by-case basis.
Some sites have a font-size control, and on occasion I've toyed with the idea of including a serif/sans-serif toggle control. Then I dismiss it as frivolous.
I've usually used Verdana and Georgia in the past, but after seing Trebuchet MS a few times, I have come to like it. I may just be growing a bit tired of Verdana, but I feel that Trebuchet MS looks a bit more distinguished in some way. My main issue with Verdana as a header font is that some of the letters does not appeal to me when the letters are too large.
i'm the other way around. i use to like trebuchet and use it all the time, however, i now use verdana.
Doing a search for "font stack" gives some interesting results. And Jon Tan has some fascinating blog entries on the subject.
We use Trebuchet exclusively on our site, and I can tell you from long experience, it has severe limitations. If you have to go with just one font, it's not a bad choice, but you don't have to go with just one. That font choice will change when we implement the redesign.
About the worst choice you could make, barring comic-sans or wingdings
they were referring to Palatino...
That assumes that you agree with the points made in the article. I don't, for the following reasons:
- The author argues that Verdana is a bad choice because it will usually be down-scaled. The reason why this is claimed to be a bad idea is that if Verdana is not installed on the computer, the text will look small. I have not, however, come across a system where Verdana is not installed. Therefore, this argument would only seem to apply to those who either:
- use some strange system, known only to remote tribes in the Andes.[/list]
- The author assumes that someone who use Verdana wish to use Arial, without using Arial. In my opinion, there is a distinct difference between the two.
- The author assumes that the average user knows how to set the font type and size in his browser. I consider this claim to be false.
- The author assumes that the author actually reduces the size of the font. This may be the case most of the time, but this is not an argument against the font. Rather, it can be consider an important argument for using the font in cases where a large text size is desirable.
I'm not some kind of Verdana apologist, but I do not consider the arguments used in the article sound.
I think Georgia is a superb font for the web if implemented carefully. Take a look at the elegant [Government Offices of Sweden website for a perfect use of Georgia. You can use Firebug to change the font to "Trebuchet MS" (not included in their list of [URL="http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/6909"]accessibility](http://www.sweden.gov.se/) options) and compares which is better.
No, if you read again, you'll see that Ed Seedhouse quoted JREAM's original post which referred to Trebuchet MS.
You beat me to it. I was going to make a very similar post. Yours is better than mine would have been
Georgia is, to my mind, pretty much of a default serif font for web development. I personally prefer Palatino just because it is a bit more elegant to my eye, but Georgia is a very, very good choice.
verdana is best for small or normal fonts in web i believe. trebuchet ms looks best only for headings.
next page →