Webmaster forum - Web fonts

Author

Web fonts

Paul Watt

2005-09-27, 7:13 pm

Hi,
Is there a list of web-safe (if there is such a thing) fonts?

Cheers

Paul

Philip Ronan

2005-09-27, 7:13 pm

"Paul Watt" wrote:

> Hi,
> Is there a list of web-safe (if there is such a thing) fonts?

No such thing really. Use one of the CSS default font-family values instead:

serif
sans-serif
monospace
cursive
fantasy

--
phil [dot] ronan @ virgin [dot] net
http://vzone.virgin.net/phil.ronan/

C A Upsdell

2005-09-27, 7:13 pm

Paul Watt wrote:
> Hi,
> Is there a list of web-safe (if there is such a thing) fonts?

http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/res_fonts.htm#a01

Kim André Akerø

2005-09-27, 7:13 pm

Paul Watt wrote:

> Hi,
> Is there a list of web-safe (if there is such a thing) fonts?

The only so-called "web-safe" fonts are the generic (fallback) font
family names used in CSS; "serif", "sans-serif", "cursive", "fantasy"
and "monospace". These names are (or at least should be) recognized by
all browsers, regardless of platform.
http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_font_font-family.asp

--
Kim André Akerø
- kimandre@NOSPAMbetadome.com
(remove NOSPAM to contact me directly)

Jonathan N. Little

2005-09-27, 7:13 pm

Paul Watt wrote:

> Hi,
> Is there a list of web-safe (if there is such a thing) fonts?
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
>
No, but some surveys out there to help indicate which fonts are common
to various OS's

Code Style: Top forty font survey results for Windows, Mac and Unix
family fonts combined

http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-f...edResults.shtml

--
Take care,

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

Neredbojias

2005-09-27, 7:13 pm

With neither quill nor qualm, Paul Watt quothed:

> Hi,
> Is there a list of web-safe (if there is such a thing) fonts?

I don't know if I know but I'll get back to you when I do.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.

Charles

2005-09-27, 7:14 pm

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:28:38 -0300, Paul Watt
<paulio@wattioNOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
> Is there a list of web-safe (if there is such a thing) fonts?

You should use the Webcore fonts
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Font-HOWTO/fonts.html#msfonts

And define also default websafe family fonts recommended by the W3C
(serif, sans-serif, icon, monospace, etc...)

--
Charles.

Desenvolvimento e criação de sites: www.auriance.com
Hospedagem de sites e servidores dedicados: www.auriance.net

Alan J. Flavell

2005-09-27, 7:14 pm

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Charles wrote:

> You should use the Webcore fonts
> http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Font-HOWTO/fonts.html#msfonts

"Should" you? Why on Earth would you want to annoy folks who have
paid good money for something better, only to find you overriding
their font choice with bog-standard MS rubbish, riddle me that?

And I see the list includes Verdana. Anyone who's read a web group
for a little while has surely met the arguments against authors
specifying Verdana. Since you claim to be in a position to offer
advice, I expect you already know the arguments, so it seems a bit
dishonest to casually recommend that page without mentioning the
caveats.

> And define also default websafe family fonts recommended by the W3C
> (serif, sans-serif, icon, monospace, etc...)

Possibly. MS even contrived to make that theoretically-good advice,
practically useless, for a while. Although things have got a bit
better since we produced these screen shots some years back:

http://css.nu/pointers/fontbug-ie.jpeg
and the others linked from the IE5 and IE4 parts of:
http://css.nu/pointers/bugs-ie.html

I think basically it's a choice between the user's selected defaults,
and the browser vendor's defaults. The user is supposed to be your
valued customer - do you trust him/her less than their browser vendor?

regards

Alan J. Flavell

2005-09-28, 6:36 pm

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Gerry White wrote:

> most browsers default to a serif'd font

Strange that the vendors should have ganged-up to so affront your
sense of what is right, isn't it?

As it happens, I usually configure my browsers to default to a sans
font (in fact, one with a good character repertoire, which is rather
more important to me than cosmetics): but if all those readers choose
a vendor who chooses a serif font for them - and at the "wrong" size
too, by your standards - who are we to argue? There might be
something in it.

> as such I think its a bad idea NOT to spefict a font ...

As I hinted before: it seems you don't trust the vendors which your
readers have chosen. There must be a message in that.

But maybe your readers have their own opinions. The more discerning
ones have already chosen the font and body size that they prefer.
Maybe you don't care about discerning readers?

If you design your pages right, they'll have no difficulty adapting
themselves to the vendors' defaults too, if that's what the reader
accepted.

> Drop the font size down by one -

Oh please, don't start on *that* again! Next you'll be telling us all
to specify Verdana.

Blinky the Shark

2005-09-28, 6:36 pm

Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Gerry White wrote:
>
>
> Strange that the vendors should have ganged-up to so affront your
> sense of what is right, isn't it?

Actually, he said "most browsers default to a serif'd font - which is
considerably less usable / readable / accessible than a serif'd font".
So go figure what he actually meant. :)

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing All Posts from GG: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Neredbojias

2005-09-28, 10:32 pm

With neither quill nor qualm, Blinky the Shark quothed:

> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
> Actually, he said "most browsers default to a serif'd font - which is
> considerably less usable / readable / accessible than a serif'd font".
> So go figure what he actually meant. :)

Scientifically speaking, anything that is less than what it is must
self-suck.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.

Matt Silberstein

2005-09-29, 3:25 am

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:43:27 +0100, in alt.www.webmaster , "Alan J.
Flavell" <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> in
<Pine.WNT.4.63.0509282131430.1636@ZORIN> wrote:

>
>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Gerry White wrote:
>
>
>Strange that the vendors should have ganged-up to so affront your
>sense of what is right, isn't it?
>
>As it happens, I usually configure my browsers to default to a sans
>font (in fact, one with a good character repertoire, which is rather
>more important to me than cosmetics): but if all those readers choose
>a vendor who chooses a serif font for them - and at the "wrong" size
>too, by your standards - who are we to argue? There might be
>something in it.

I have an unfortunately obsession with fonts. At the very least serif
does make a difference. I use them for very different purposes. And
while there "might" be something to people's choice, and I think
people should have the option, I am not sure most people know which to
use and why.

>
>As I hinted before: it seems you don't trust the vendors which your
>readers have chosen. There must be a message in that.
>
>But maybe your readers have their own opinions. The more discerning
>ones have already chosen the font and body size that they prefer.
>Maybe you don't care about discerning readers?

Seriously, why would someone decide before looking at the text which
kind of font to you? I can understand liking larger or smaller, I
suppose, but serif fonts have a different affect than sans in
different situations. The look of a headline is different than regular
text.

>If you design your pages right, they'll have no difficulty adapting
>themselves to the vendors' defaults too, if that's what the reader
>accepted.
>
>
>Oh please, don't start on *that* again! Next you'll be telling us all
>to specify Verdana.

Specify Veranda. Ok, I had to.

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org

Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/

Matt Probert

2005-09-29, 6:28 pm

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:43:30 +0100, Toby Inkster
<usenet200509@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:

> Kim AndrÃ© AkerÃ¸ wrote:
>
>
> ... assuming they:
>
> a) support CSS
> b) understand the concept of a "font" at all
>

That is something you dunk babies in isn't it?

Matt

--
You should be so lucky!
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

Alan J. Flavell

2005-09-29, 10:28 pm

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Matt Silberstein wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:43:27 +0100, in alt.www.webmaster , "Alan J.
> Flavell" <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> in
> <Pine.WNT.4.63.0509282131430.1636@ZORIN> wrote:
>
[...][color=darkred]
>
> Seriously, why would someone decide before looking at the text which
> kind of font to you? I can understand liking larger or smaller, I
> suppose, but serif fonts have a different affect than sans in
> different situations. The look of a headline is different than regular
> text.

Sorry, I don't seem to have made it clear that I was talking about
"body text". Naturally there will be snippets of text on the page
(such as headings) which don't need to be read as solid paragraphs of
text - will typically be larger and/or bolder than body text - and to
which these considerations of user choice and reading comfort
(whichever side of the argument you finally come down on in respect of
body text) apply much less strongly.

I'm only trying to present both sides of the argument. What you do in
the end is your decision (or your customer's), after all.

I just resent the apparent attitude of many authors that readers are
just passive cattle with no kind of choices of their own, and
completely incapable of manipulating their own browser. Just how they
managed to navigate their way to the author's precious pages, under
these conditions, seems to remain a mystery.

all the best