

Fonts for web design: a primer - lamnk
http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/fonts-for-web-design-a-primer/

======
simplegeek
I don't understand one thing & I will really appreciate if someone can answer
this for me. Suppose, I've made a PDF for my customers and PDF uses either
Calibri or Gerogia then will these fonts be available on all platforms? I mean
will customers be able to read the PDF that uses Calibri or Georgia on all
OSs? Please enlighten me. Thanks.

~~~
mncaudill
Fonts can be embedded into PDFs, if I remember correctly. Most PDF creators
handle this for you automatically by default.

~~~
grinich
They can also be fairly easily pulled out of PDFs, if you need it for another
purpose.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Which probably infringes the copyright on the the fonts.

------
robotrout
All right, answer me this question.

If there's anything that proves that you're hip and cool and just the smartest
thing since Einstein, I'd guess that even more than trashing PHP, it's got to
be trashing Comic Sans.

Why does Comic Sans get berated for "being used too often", when nobody says
that Times or Arial, for example, are used too often?

Is it trashed for "being ugly"? It can't be "ugly" and "used too often" at the
same time, any more than an ugly house can be photographed too often. Also,
what does "ugly" mean? Illegible?

Personally, when I'm judging how legible a font is (how easy it is to read
when it's small, for example), I have to say that Comic Sans does very well.

Perhaps it's a polarizing design, where some people just hate it, and it's
better to bore everybody than to cause that level of heartburn to those of a
more sensitive persuasion. Is that it? If so, who are these people, exactly?
The general public, I think, really has more important things to worry about
than somebodies font choice, so who are these delicate flowers that we're
protecting?

I would just be interested in knowing where this animosity is coming from, and
whether it's based on anything real, or is it like metro-sexual fashion
preference, and it's only based on "what's in"? (Or in this case, "what's
out")

~~~
ugh
Typography has a long history and tradition. Rules that might seem pedantic to
the outsider. But those rules and traditions give anything touched by someone
who know’s what she is doing that special polish. “So what?” you might ask,
but sometimes it’s nice to see that someone cares about small things. Like
correct quotation marks.

Truth is, there is nothing wrong with Comic Sans as a font. It is perfectly
alright to use it for your children’s birthday invitations. Or if you are a
peditrician for your door sign. There are nicer fonts for such jobs but if you
don’t want to spend any money, using Comic Sans is perfectly alright.

But you cannot just use any font for any job. Well, you can, and Comic Sans
may be every bit as legible as Verdana. But there is always a aesthetic side
to the question, which font you should use. It’s not just about legibility.
It’s about using the right tool for the right job. Comic Sans was never
intended to be used in menus of classy restaurants. You just don’t do that.
And in that respect, Comic Sans has just become overused. Comic Sans may be
the most visible sign that it’s no longer professionals who are in charge of
picking fonts. I (not being a professional myself) don’t think that is such a
huge problem. But it would be really nice if the general public knew a little
bit more about typography so that everything’s not lost.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
_"Comic Sans was never intended to be used in menus of classy restaurants."_

No, they must use Vivaldi, ditto wedding invitations. ;0)>

------
russell
There are lots of good articles out there on font choices for the web and this
seems to be a reasonable, if cursory, introduction. I personally dont care for
either Times and prefer Georgia for a serif typeface that works for both
monitors and print. Verdana is a good choice for headings.

If you havent thought about fonts, I recommend spending an afternoon googling
around. There are lots of good articles. Font selection is one of he areas
where a lot of web developers fall down, usually by using too many or ones
with poor readability.

~~~
alabut
_usually by using too many or ones with poor readability_

Very true, and if I had to distill the advice in the article down, most
developers would go far by starting with these guidelines:

1) only use serifs for headings.

2) only use sans-serifs for body copy.

3) keep the number of different fonts on the page under 3 at most, including
the logo and any other graphic flourishes.

~~~
ugh
Guidelines one and two have no empirical support. It seems to be the case that
choice of font is merely a aesthetic decision.

See:

[http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-102999-110544...](http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-102999-110544/unrestricted/WeisenmillerDissertation.pdf)
(PDF)

<http://www.laurenscharff.com/research/AHNCUR.html>

[http://sigchi.org/chi95/Electronic/documnts/intpost/tst_bdy....](http://sigchi.org/chi95/Electronic/documnts/intpost/tst_bdy.htm)

<http://www.surl.org/usabilitynews/22/font.asp>

[https://eldorado.tu-
dortmund.de/dspace/bitstream/2003/24419/...](https://eldorado.tu-
dortmund.de/dspace/bitstream/2003/24419/2/dissertation_liebig.pdf) (PDF,
German)

<http://www.designtagebuch.de/die-gefuehlte-lesbarkeit/> (German)

