Subject:
|
Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:24:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
906 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 07:23:36 GMT, "Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> The nice thing about Verdana -- (I'd forgotten all about this) -- is that
> even though Microsoft is known for distributing and popularizing it, it
> doesn't carry that dorky "MS" suffix like "Trebuchet MS" does. And even
> better yet, it's the same height on-screen as Arial at <FONT SIZE="-2"> but
> it's a bit wider and more readable at very small sizes.
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.
<http://home.att.net/~blisses/ldao/ldaddon.html>, if you don't believe me.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 16-Apr-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 11-Apr-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
