We're deep into the realms of personal preferance here. (Oh, Lord, how porny did that sound when I typed it?) Given that, I think there's quite a case for the user-chooses argument.
And what's the fun in becoming an immortal demon if you're not regular, am I right?
The Mayor ,'End of Days'
Buffistas Building a Better Board
Do you have problems, concerns or recommendations about the technical side of the Phoenix? Air them here. Compliments also welcome.
Am-Chau Yarkona - Dec 19, 2002 2:16:35 pm PST #2161 of 10000
I bop to Wittgenstein. -- Nutty
Rob - Dec 19, 2002 2:19:43 pm PST #2162 of 10000
Er, which, the good or the bad?
The bad. Some ergonmics agency in Germany has rules about fonts that the old Chicago violated. One of them caused them to change the flat bottoms on the V's and W's. But Chicago was designed to have such flat bottoms. It's a travesty.
Of course, Chicago was a non-ideal choice for iPod, but that's another issue entirely.
DXMachina - Dec 19, 2002 2:22:58 pm PST #2163 of 10000
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
I don't like the upper-case "V" in verdana. It always looks like backslash-forwardslash to me.
For me, it's the "X" that bugs, among other things.
P.M. Marc - Dec 19, 2002 2:27:23 pm PST #2164 of 10000
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear
I dislike the i, but that may be the Ple/Pie confusion.
DXMachina - Dec 19, 2002 2:29:25 pm PST #2165 of 10000
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Ple, pie, it's all good.
Lyra Jane - Dec 19, 2002 2:30:50 pm PST #2166 of 10000
Up with the sun
Too big, and I find it unattractive.
I definitely agree that it's too big. It's not unattractive per se, though I think it's a little rough-looking. I think Ariel and Univers are more readable if you're going for a sans serif.
Anyhow, I like the idea of making the font user-definable -- either by defaulting to the user's browser preferences, or by adding the choice to the "set profile" page.
(And I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who's not in love with the font.)
billytea - Dec 19, 2002 2:31:32 pm PST #2167 of 10000
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.
I dislike the i, but that may be the Ple/Pie confusion.
Yep. This is the sort of reason why serif fonts come out easier to read for blocks of text.
fillip. jilli. And so on.
John H - Dec 19, 2002 2:36:51 pm PST #2168 of 10000
People will tell you over and over that sans-serif fonts are "easier to read", strangely. Mostly graphic designers though, and they tend to be not so much about the reading (I'm trying to be nice).
And it's scientific that the serifs make for readability. It's strange that people keep claiming the opposite.
I think what happened is between Netscape 2 and 3 it became possible to set the font face, which was always Times by default and everyone immediately changed theirs to a sans-serif, just to make a change, and ever since then it's been serif fonts old-fashioned, sans-serifs new.
DXMachina - Dec 19, 2002 2:42:59 pm PST #2169 of 10000
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
IIRC, the argument goes that there's no doubt that serif is more readable for printed matter, where you have lots of resolution to ensure that the serifs are well defined, that's not the case when you are looking at the fonts on a screen, where the resolution is much lower.
Jessica - Dec 19, 2002 2:44:32 pm PST #2170 of 10000
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
it's scientific that the serifs make for readability.
[edit: Another study showing the same results.]