 | | Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
|
(...) Hey, there's nothing wrong with Times -- it just depends how you use it. In most occurrences, it's not used to its full potential. If you've got a large amount of body-text meant to be read sequentially, then Times is a great choice -- and (...) (26 years ago, 11-Apr-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
|
(...) But Verdana can be easily misused when it falls into the wrong hands. Just look at most of my webpages as an example. They're generally pretty bad. (URL), if you don't believe me. Steve (26 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
|
(...) Hmm. Seems to me the whole typography thing goes against the grain of how the web was conceived. Isn't HTML supposed to be a description of how a page is rendered, with the particular web browser deciding on fonts? FWIW, Steve's page looks (...) (26 years ago, 16-Apr-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
|
(...) Indeed it does go against the original intentions/conceptions. (...) Long ago it was supposed to be that way. But that was when physicists, mathematicians, and programmers were the only people using the web. It's possible (maybe even easy) to (...) (26 years ago, 16-Apr-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
|
(...) All true. It's the "careful attention to backward compatibility" that bugs me. HTML is supposed to be device independent, so you don't *need* to worry about these details. Sure, tags enable new features without breaking older browsers, but you (...) (26 years ago, 17-Apr-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
|
(...) It still is, and you still don't need to unless you really want to. That's the winning beauty of it. Unfortunately, when people ignore compatibility, it's usually that they're using new features and forgetting about backward compatibility (...) (26 years ago, 17-Apr-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
|
(...) Yeah, even those cute little error messages with the bombs on them are adorable. :) (26 years ago, 17-Apr-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
|
(...) Websites that intentionally exclude the largest possible audience will lose in the marketplace. eBay, Amazon, and Yahoo seem to do just fine with plain old HTML, why shouldn't anyone else? (...) The designer had better be serious about those (...) (26 years ago, 19-Apr-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
|
(...) I disagree. First, whether or not a website loses in the marketplace has little to do with whether the exclusion of the largest possible audience was intentional or unintentional, right? :) Second, for the largest possible audience, you would (...) (26 years ago, 19-Apr-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
|
(...) Say, what do you think about HTML/XML extensions for doing line-art? (I mean official extensions, of course -- if they can be standardized upon. There are so many people competing for this right now, it frightens me.) Anyway, it's not that (...) (26 years ago, 19-Apr-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
|
(...) Actually, my biggest complaint these days is their latency. It takes so long to download 30 little gifs used to put together a page on a modem. And I'd _love_ to have some fast connection, but the only one available here is a T1. And those (...) (26 years ago, 20-Apr-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
|
(...) In theory, a bunch of small GIFs -should- load quickly with a page, right? As long as both the client & server are using HTTP 1.1 and Keep-Alive? I know what you mean, though... What a gunky thing to see a bunch of little image icons on a page (...) (26 years ago, 20-Apr-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
|
(...) A great idea. I know of one proposed standard, from Adobe, Netscape, and IBM - PGML (precision graphics markup language). The W3 proposal is at: (URL) back to the "old technology browsers" thing, I'm glad we've agreed to disagree. :^) However, (...) (26 years ago, 22-Apr-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | WOT: Futurama (was Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times)
|
|
(...) Did you see Futurama earlier this week? Fry and Leela were put on trial in a robot court, with an obviously-ancient Mac as the presiding judge. It even system-bombed during its deliberations, with the authentic Mac Plus tone. -Tim (Followups (...) (26 years ago, 22-Apr-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
|
(...) We probably agree more on the basic principles than it seems. :) I agree with all the ideals -- I just don't see the ideals being fully idealized forever, what with all the sorts of bozo stuff going on like Active-X (glorified MS-OLE, which is (...) (26 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
|
(...) OOOO! Tufte *rocks*. I've got two of his books (Visual Display of Quanititative Information and Visual Explanations), and they are just a total joy to read and look at. Check out Tomalak's Realm, too: (URL) got pointed to it (and JN) by Dave (...) (26 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
