Prev: How (the heck) do you center a Web page in IE8 (for the umpteenthtime)?
Next: How to repeat a background image on the left side and another on the right side of a web page?
From: Jukka K. Korpela on 14 Mar 2010 10:53 Hans-Georg Michna wrote: > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:31:27 +0200, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > >> Setting font size to a px value is alarming (and a bad idea) > > Why is that? This is explained fairly often in this group. > px is the only measure which (counter-intuitively), > at least according to the standard, adjusts for actual physical > resolution, while all other measures are absolute. The "standard" is obscure and does not really define when px values should be scaled, and people normally use px because they think there is no scaling. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Andreas Prilop on 16 Mar 2010 12:50 On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > if you suggest Arial and Geneva as alternatives, > what makes you think Arial should be favored when both are available? Arial is a typeface consisting of four fonts, whereas Geneva is just a single font. It makes no sense at all to specify Geneva on the web. -- In memoriam Alan J. Flavell http://www.alanflavell.org.uk/charset/
From: Jukka K. Korpela on 16 Mar 2010 15:23 Andreas Prilop wrote: > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > >> if you suggest Arial and Geneva as alternatives, >> what makes you think Arial should be favored when both are available? > > Arial is a typeface consisting of four fonts, whereas Geneva is > just a single font. People seem to refer to Geneva italic, Geneva bold, and even Geneva bold italic. Maybe they are referring to "pirate" copies, or maybe they are referring to algorithmically bolded or slanted Geneva. The page http://www.adobe.com/products/postscript/pdfs/ps3fonts.pdf mentions just "Geneva", whereas for other fonts, sorry, typefaces, italic and bold versions are separately listed. So apparently you are right, as usual. On the other hand... > It makes no sense at all to specify Geneva on the web. If your document does not use italics or bolding for some textual content, the lack of italic and bold fonts doesn't sound like a convincing argument against using Geneva for it. What I was pointing at was the order: if you have some reason for mentioning Geneva at all, why make it second to Arial? Systems that lack Arial are rare, and I see little reason to guess that on such systems, Geneva would be an improvement over the system's default sans-serif font, so why not write just font-family: Arial, sans-serif ? -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: dorayme on 16 Mar 2010 16:23 In article <j3Rnn.16544$pL1.5547(a)uutiset.elisa.fi>, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela(a)cs.tut.fi> wrote: > > It makes no sense at all to specify Geneva on the web. > > If your document does not use italics or bolding for some textual content, > the lack of italic and bold fonts doesn't sound like a convincing argument > against using Geneva for it. It is frustrating to use Geneva when bold is wanted in my word processing apps (Geneva makes no bold available in the typeface package). In fact it simply mostly does not work at all. But if Geneva is specified in the CSS for an HTML doc, it looks fine to me on Mac, even with a great chunk of <b>text...</b> Perhaps you and Andreas are connoisseurs or perhaps even I would be aghast if I saw it on other than (my?) Macintosh computers and browsers. -- dorayme
From: Andreas Prilop on 17 Mar 2010 11:50
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, dorayme wrote: > It is frustrating to use Geneva when bold is wanted in my word > processing apps (Geneva makes no bold available in the typeface > package). In fact it simply mostly does not work at all. See? There is no "Geneva Bold". > But if Geneva is specified in the CSS for an HTML doc, it looks > fine to me on Mac, even with a great chunk of <b>text...</b> Sadly, most people today cannot tell real italics and boldface from slanted and bolded fonts. -- In memoriam Alan J. Flavell http://www.alanflavell.org.uk/charset/ |