Does anyone know if this (or something similar) exists?

I'm looking for a complete list and/or comparison chart of web-safe
fonts for use in Windows, Mac and Linux.  Ideally, the list would
contain up-to-date information (2006 or newer) including fonts
released with Windows Vista, Mac OS X and/or the newest, most popular
distributions of Linux.  It would also contain lists of fonts included
with older operating systems, such as Windows 98 and any equivalent OS
releases for Mac & Linux (circa 1998).

Font lists for all operating systems would be fine, but ideally, what
I'm looking for would contain a comparison chart or something ranked
by percentage of "web-safety".  Anything that a web designer could use
as a reliable, up-to-date source when making long-term decisions about
how they will design going forward.

Someone has to have *something* like this out there but, for the life
of me, I can't find it anywhere!

Thanks in advance.

philaphan80@yahoo.com wrote:
> Does anyone know if this (or something similar) exists?

yes: font-family: serif;
or:  font-family: sans-serif;

Probably the best and web-safest choice you can make. Everything else is 
a wild guess. So for a second-best choice you would go with:

font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif;
font-family: Times New Roman, Times, Georgia, serif;

But this is already packed with lots of uncertainties: e.g.: a lot of 
Mac owner believe that 'Times' is a common font, it might in the mac 
world, but it isn't for the rest of the world. Times can be anything, 
and on my machine it's an old typewriter-style-font from the 40's...


> 
> Someone has to have *something* like this out there but, for the life
> of me, I can't find it anywhere!

I assume because it really doesn't exist.

HTH
bernhard


-- 
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply

<philaphan80@yahoo.com> schrieb:
> Does anyone know if this (or something similar) exists?

The short answer is: no.

> I'm looking for a complete list and/or comparison chart of web-safe
> fonts for use in Windows, Mac and Linux.  Ideally, the list would
> contain up-to-date information (2006 or newer) including fonts
> released with Windows Vista, Mac OS X and/or the newest, most popular
> distributions of Linux.=20

So you aim primarily at people with the latest computer models? ;-)

> It would also contain lists of fonts included
> with older operating systems, such as Windows 98 and any equivalent OS
> releases for Mac & Linux (circa 1998).
>=20
> Font lists for all operating systems would be fine, but ideally, what
> I'm looking for would contain a comparison chart or something ranked
> by percentage of "web-safety".  Anything that a web designer could use
> as a reliable, up-to-date source when making long-term decisions about
> how they will design going forward.

You can use any fonts in flash or pdf or gif/png graphics. In HTML, =
specifying=20
particular fonts is just groping in the dark. Even if the OS ships with =
certain fonts,=20
how can you tell that the user did not uninstall them? Even if some wild =
guess=20
tells you that 80 percent of all computers have Tahoma installed - what =
if on=20
your most important visitor's monitor it is replaced by Impact or =
Wingdings?

Your question is neither font nor design related - it refers to web =
design.
Ask in a web design group if you don't believe me.

Andreas

On 2 Apr 2007 13:30:36 -0700, philaphan80@yahoo.com wrote:

>Does anyone know if this (or something similar) exists?
>
>I'm looking for a complete list and/or comparison chart of web-safe
>fonts for use in Windows, Mac and Linux.  Ideally, the list would
>contain up-to-date information (2006 or newer) including fonts
>released with Windows Vista, Mac OS X and/or the newest, most popular
>distributions of Linux.  It would also contain lists of fonts included
>with older operating systems, such as Windows 98 and any equivalent OS
>releases for Mac & Linux (circa 1998).
>
>Font lists for all operating systems would be fine, but ideally, what
>I'm looking for would contain a comparison chart or something ranked
>by percentage of "web-safety".  Anything that a web designer could use
>as a reliable, up-to-date source when making long-term decisions about
>how they will design going forward.
>
>Someone has to have *something* like this out there but, for the life
>of me, I can't find it anywhere!
>
>Thanks in advance.

Just use Flash, it's fully cross compatible and you can directly embed
fonts with it AND you get proper font anti-aliasing.

 --

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm � x �
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the 
best."

"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you 
with it."

"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct 
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others 
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start 
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that 
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just 
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere. 
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, 
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly 
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip 
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand 
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible 
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even 
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you 
don't get sent to me...I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton 
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a 
function?" 

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid. 
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast 
indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken?  Really?  You're sure?  Awww, 
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!"    `, )

> Probably the best and web-safest choice you can make. Everything else is  
> a wild guess. So for a second-best choice you would go with:
>
> font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif;
> font-family: Times New Roman, Times, Georgia, serif;

I would change the list to:

> font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;
> font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;

This is because Verdana and Georgia are the most legible. However Georgia  
is somewhat bigger than Times and they are not exactly interchangeable.

I would omit Helvetica completly because in some versions spacing is very  
uneven and unsuitable for body text. Also Adobe's basic Type1 Times may  
not look that good on screen.

With current technology the technical quality of font, espcially hinting,  
is more important than design in body text.

All text elements that play important role in design preferably as images  
(flash, png, jpg....)

Jukka

Scripsit Bernhard Sturm:

> philaphan80@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Does anyone know if this (or something similar) exists?
>
> yes: font-family: serif;
> or:  font-family: sans-serif;

What about font-family: monospace?

But none of these is a "web-safe font". They are generic font names that are 
mapped to fonts of particular kinds in a browser-dependent manner (if 
possible - some browsers use a fixed font no matter what you do).

Regarding the original question (about a list of comparison chart about 
"web-safe fonts"), the best compilation is probably at
http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-family/
though it just summarizes statistics of font availability (based on 
unreliable sources but better than pure guesses).

The useful question is what you wish to achieve by setting font(s) on a web 
page, as opposite to defaulting them. Would you set the overall font, or the 
fonts of some specific elements like headings or table cells, or both? Why? 
Only after such a basic analysis can we meaningfully ask which specific 
fonts should be suggested, given the rather restrictive limitations of the 
web.

As a rule of thumb, for the overall font setting, you might not set it at 
all (and accept the fact that most people will see your page in Times New 
Roman and a considerable minority will see it on the font _they_ selected, 
among all the available fonts on _their_ system that _they_ can know), or 
you might set

body, table { font-family: FuturaMedium, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; }
* { line-height: 1.3; }

Replace FuturaMedium by the sans-serif font you personally prefer (or a list 
of such fonts), among fonts of the roughly same basic properties as Arial, 
hopefully realizing that only a fraction of users will see the page in that 
font and the vast majority will see it in Arial. - Setting line-height is 
essential if you set the font to sans-serif, since common browser defaults 
for line-height are fairly small and apparently selected with the default 
font, Times New Roman, in mind. You'll see this if you check how pages 
behave when they have fairly long lines of text.

> Probably the best and web-safest choice you can make. Everything else
> is a wild guess.

No, serif and sans-serif are by definition not safe at all. The best you can 
hope for is that they are mapped to _some_ serif and sans-serif fonts, 
respectively, either by user selection (as on Firefox) or by browser 
settings, where the mappings can be expected to be fairly neutral, giving 
fonts that don't aggravate anyone - vanilla fonts, so to say. The 
expectations are met relatively well for the three generic font names 
mentioned (but not for the other two, fantasy and cursive, which give 
unpredictably awful results).

If you decide to use sans-serif, serif, or monospace, then it might be a 
good choice but _not_ because of their being "web-safe fonts" but by the 
effect of getting _some_ tolerable fonts.

>So for a second-best choice you would go with:
>
> font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif;

There's not much point in listing Helvetica _after_ Arial, since systems 
with Helvetica generally have Arial too, and users of those systems probably 
prefer Helvetica. Mentioning Verdana at all in such a list is pointless for 
similar reasons, so I won't go into the reasons why Verdana is generally 
unsuitable as copy text font on web pages.

> font-family: Times New Roman, Times, Georgia, serif;
>
> But this is already packed with lots of uncertainties: e.g.: a lot of
> Mac owner believe that 'Times' is a common font, it might in the mac
> world, but it isn't for the rest of the world. Times can be anything,
> and on my machine it's an old typewriter-style-font from the 40's...

Then you have an odd computer, and web page settings cannot cover 
everything.

Generally, mentioning Times _after_ Times New Roman is pointless, and so is 
mentioning Georgia after them. Mentioning Times New Roman at all when you 
have the generic fallback (serif) is questionable too:  when a system hasn't 
got any of the fonts you really prefer as an author, the odds are that the 
generic name serif maps to Times New Roman or a _better_ font (by user 
criteria) than Times New Roman.

-- 
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Scripsit Bernhard Sturm:
>> Times can be anything,
>> and on my machine it's an old typewriter-style-font from the 40's...
> 
> Then you have an odd computer, and web page settings cannot cover 
> everything.

:-) Typography is a realm on its own: The name 'Times' can be used by 
any typefoundry. This has nothing to do with the 'oddity' of a computer. 
As you mentioned it before: the only half-secure font-family would be 
'font-family:serif;'. Don't try to guess what I could have installed on 
my system or why my system is 'odd' in your point of view.

cheers
bernhard




-- 
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply

On Apr 2, 9:30 pm, philapha...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Does anyone know if this (or something similar) exists?
>
> I'm looking for a complete list and/or comparison chart of web-safe
> fonts for use in Windows, Mac and Linux.  Ideally, the list would
> contain up-to-date information (2006 or newer) including fonts
> released with Windows Vista, Mac OS X and/or the newest, most popular
> distributions of Linux.  It would also contain lists of fonts included
> with older operating systems, such as Windows 98 and any equivalent OS
> releases for Mac & Linux (circa 1998).
>
> Font lists for all operating systems would be fine, but ideally, what
> I'm looking for would contain a comparison chart or something ranked
> by percentage of "web-safety".  Anything that a web designer could use
> as a reliable, up-to-date source when making long-term decisions about
> how they will design going forward.
>
> Someone has to have *something* like this out there but, for the life
> of me, I can't find it anywhere!
>
> Thanks in advance.

You can use any font you like, whether or not the end user will see
that font depends on the technology you use. A web design could be
using Flash, in which case the font is part of the media and it
doesn't matter what the user has installed. Also, if your are text in
graphics...

The number of web safe fonts (as in, "ones that can be used in HTML")
hasn't changed much over the years.

> There's not much point in listing Helvetica _after_ Arial, since systems  
> with Helvetica generally have Arial too, and users of those systems  
> probably prefer Helvetica. Mentioning Verdana at all in such a list is  
> pointless for similar reasons, so I won't go into the reasons why  
> Verdana is generally unsuitable as copy text font on web pages.

Not exactly, Verdana is way better than Helvetica which, like said, has  
poor spacing (tight) and too big x-height. Depends also on personal  
preference of course.

Jukka

Scripsit Bernhard Sturm:

> The name 'Times' can be used by any typefoundry.

No, it cannot, by law in many countries. The name "Times" is an established 
trademark for fonts. Of course this does not guarantee stability, since the 
trademark owner may use the trademark for different fonts.

> This has nothing to do with the 'oddity' of a computer.

I think it is odd that your computer contains a font that apparently 
violates trademark laws.

> As you mentioned it before: the only half-secure
> font-family would be 'font-family:serif;'.

I said nothing of the kind. I explicitly said that serif is not a font 
family but a generic name, I didn't present it as more secure than serif or 
monospace (rather, the opposite), and I didn't use any word like 
"half-secure".

> Don't try to guess what I
> could have installed on my system

I don't. I have referred to statistic phenomena only, not your personal 
computer.

>  or why my system is 'odd' in your point of view.

It is objectively odd if you have a font called Times but substantially 
different from what is legally sold as Times.

-- 
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 

Scripsit Armadillo:

>>- -  I won't go into the
>> reasons why Verdana is generally unsuitable as copy text font on web
>> pages.
>
> Not exactly, Verdana is way better than Helvetica

If you're commenting on the last statement of my message, you should have 
trimmed the quotation accordingly (as I did now). And you would be wrong; 
see the classic "Why you should avoid the Verdana font [on the Web]",
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

> which, like said,
> has poor spacing (tight) and too big x-height.

You must have confused something. It's Verdana that is justly mentioned as a 
proverbial example of large x-height. Whether it's "too big" depends on what 
you use it for, and how. Regarding spacing, Helvetica isn't very different 
from Arial and not particularly tight, or really tighter than Verdana. See
http://www.linotype.com/helvetica

You may have been thinking about Tahoma, which is essentially a condensed 
version of Verdana.

-- 
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 

And you would be wrong; see the classic "Why you should avoid the Verdana  
font [on the Web]",
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

Anyone who creates a page like that do not know anything about design and  
type. That page is just plain illegible and the W3C buttons at the bottom  
do not help that much. Instead of avoiding Verdana we should avoid  
(making) pages like that.

> You must have confused something. It's Verdana that is justly mentioned  
> as a proverbial example of large x-height. Whether it's "too big"  
> depends on what you use it for, and how. Regarding spacing, Helvetica  
> isn't very different from Arial and not particularly tight, or really  
> tighter than Verdana. See
> http://www.linotype.com/helvetica
>
> You may have been thinking about Tahoma, which is essentially a  
> condensed version of Verdana.

I have not confused anything, I know my type. ;)

In fact that particular Linotype page uses Verdana as default font and it  
is on screen way more legible in small default sizes 10px and 9px than  
Arial or Helvetica. So if Linotype's web designers think Verdana works  
best I guess we should agree.

It is true that Verdana too has large x-height but the character shapes  
are better and designed for screen while Helvetica is designed for print.  
Arial is kind of hybrid, a print type but well hinted and adjusted for  
screen. Modern versions of Helvetica are slightly better than old versions  
which have very uneven and too tight spacing. Even autohinting in FontLab  
makes a better job.

Also the danger in using Helvetica is that system chooses Adobe Type1  
Helvetica from basic35 Postscript set which do not work on screen at all -  
like Type1 in general, due to worse hinting than TrueType.

Jukka

Armadillo wrote:
> 
> And you would be wrong; see the classic "Why you should avoid the 
> Verdana font [on the Web]",
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html
> 
> Anyone who creates a page like that do not know anything about design 
> and type. That page is just plain illegible and the W3C buttons at the 
> bottom do not help that much. Instead of avoiding Verdana we should 
> avoid (making) pages like that.

Which I believe is true: a lot of people are mixing typography on the 
web with what is technically reasonable. And this does interfere. 
Verdana was designed by a (well respected) typographer for screen 
legibility on small font-sizes. The introduction of Verdana (and 
Georgia) made web-design a lot easier in terms of a common typography.


just my two cents
bernhard

-- 
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> 
> You may have been thinking about Tahoma, which is essentially a 
> condensed version of Verdana.
> 
No definitely not. Verdana is an entirely new typeface. And Tahoma was 
derived from Verdana. Matthew Carter designed Verdana, and later on the 
typography team at MS Typography developed Tahoma as the XP inteface font.

HTH
bernhard



-- 
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply

Bernhard Sturm wrote:
> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 
>>
>> You may have been thinking about Tahoma, which is essentially a 
>> condensed version of Verdana.
>>
> No definitely not. Verdana is an entirely new typeface. And Tahoma was 
> derived from Verdana. Matthew Carter designed Verdana, and later on the 
> typography team at MS Typography developed Tahoma as the XP inteface font.
> 
which is what you said in your orignal statement, too... sorry, must 
have read it wrong :-)

bernhard

-- 
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply

On Apr 3, 1:28 pm, Bernhard Sturm <sturmnixs...@datacomm.ch> wrote:
> Bernhard Sturm wrote:

> which is what you said in your orignal statement, too... sorry, must
> have read it wrong :-)
>
> bernhard

Talking to yourself *again*? :)

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> You may have been thinking about Tahoma, which is essentially a condensed
> version of Verdana.

Tahoma has two fonts (plain & bold); Verdana has four fonts (plain,
italic, bold, bold italic).
Tahoma has much more characters than Verdana, especially extended
Latin, Arabic, Hebrew, Thai.

-- 
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author:Alan.J.Flavell

Scripsit Armadillo:

> And you would be wrong; see the classic "Why you should avoid the
> Verdana font [on the Web]",
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

You have quoted my text improperly, without indicating it as quoted, i.e. as 
if it were your words.

> Anyone who creates a page like that do not know anything about design
> and type.

Now that's plain stupid: instead of presenting counterarguments to the 
arguments presented on the page you start flaming the page appearance, and 
without justification at that.

> That page is just plain illegible

It mostly uses the font the user has chosen, so you are saying that _you_ 
did not configure _your_ browser to use a default font face and size that 
_you_ prefer, and now you are accusing the page of that.

> and the W3C buttons at
> the bottom do not help that much.

Of course they don't, but they're the crap recommended by the W3C and used 
on millions of pages, so raising the issue in this context is just pointless 
diversion.

> Instead of avoiding Verdana we
> should avoid (making) pages like that.

Your accusations are unsound, but even if they weren't, you wouldn't have 
refuted any of its _content_.

>> You may have been thinking about Tahoma, which is essentially a
>> condensed version of Verdana.
>
> I have not confused anything, I know my type. ;)

Yet you don't have a word to say about the points I made, like the fact that 
your notes about x-height make no sense.

> In fact that particular Linotype page uses Verdana as default font
> and it is on screen way more legible in small default sizes 10px and
> 9px than Arial or Helvetica.

The bad design of that page proves nothing. If you babble about the 
legibility of Verdana in small sizes you have missed the point of the page 
about why Verdana shouldn't be used.  You words about default sizes 10px and 
9px suggest that you must be living in another universe; typical browser 
defaults are very far from that, thank &Deity;.

> It is true that Verdana too has large x-height

So you did confuse things, didn't you?

-- 
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> schrieb:

> > font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif;
>=20
> There's not much point in listing Helvetica _after_ Arial, since =
systems=20
> with Helvetica generally have Arial too, and users of those systems =
probably=20
> prefer Helvetica.=20

LOL, excuse me, but that's utter nonsense. Arial is optimized for screen
display while many versions of Helvetica are not. (I have no idea as to
whether there is actually one version that is as good as Arial at that.
Considering it comes from Adobe which does not use TT and therefore
diagonal hinting, I rather doubt it.)=20

I for one use the free T1 Helvetica that shipped with Acrobat reader 3
in prehistoric times. Once or twice a week I am p***ed off by some nerd=20
who put Helvetica before Arial in his stylesheet, which results in =
blurry
text at body text sizes (unless I start ATM light to remove Helvetica).

Seriously, why should someone who has a copy of Helvetica installed
that displays as fine on screen as Arial does, install Arial at all =
(instead
of using a font substitution)? For all others, Helvetica before Arial in
a screen stylesheet is just a PITA.

Just my .02 =E2=82=AC

Andreas

Scripsit Andreas Höfeld:

> Arial is optimized for
> screen display while many versions of Helvetica are not.

"Optimized" is a marketese word that almost never has its nominal meaning 
("made the best possible", from Latin "optimum" "best"). It's safe to assume 
that it means just "good", in a subjective sense, unless proven otherwise.

How could you really _optimize_ for screen display when screens are so 
different? What could it even _mean_ to optimize a font? There are so many 
criteria of goodness that no general optimum even exists. You can at most 
optimize under given conditions and criteria, and then it's so specific that 
it has little interest in general discussions.

> I for one use the free T1 Helvetica that shipped with Acrobat reader 3
> in prehistoric times. Once or twice a week I am p***ed off

Well, maybe you should take a small part of the blame if _you_ use something 
that you characterize as prehistoric. After all, it's _you_ who decide to 
keep the font on your system, despite your negative experiences with it.

> Seriously, why should someone who has a copy of Helvetica installed
> that displays as fine on screen as Arial does, install Arial at all

Yeah, why should she? Arial was most probably already installed when she got 
the computer.

I'm not particularly favoring the use of Helvetica on web pages. I was just 
commenting on its appearance in the font-family list in a position where it 
will probably be ignored anyway.

If you just set
font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
then most probably those who haven't got Arial will have Helvetica as the 
default sans-serif font, or have a font better (to them) than Helvetica as 
the default sans-serif font, or don't have Helvetica at all. So what could 
possibly be the point of inserting Helvetica into the list?

-- 
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 

Armadillo wrote:
> 
>> Probably the best and web-safest choice you can make. Everything else 
>> is a wild guess. So for a second-best choice you would go with:
>>
>> font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif;
>> font-family: Times New Roman, Times, Georgia, serif;
> 
> I would change the list to:
> 
>> font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;
>> font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;

That will fall flat on its face for many older Unix/Linux systems 
because Verdana, Arial, and Georgia were done for Microsoft Windows, and 
were not available for other systems until later.

The only web-safe spec is serif, sans-serif, or monospace. Let the user 
decide (via browser config) what fonts to use. If the client or designer 
gets all upset and panicky about "people must see my fonts" then do them 
as a graphic or use PDF instead.

///Peter

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Scripsit Bernhard Sturm:
> 
>> The name 'Times' can be used by any typefoundry.
> 
> No, it cannot, by law in many countries. The name "Times" is an 
> established trademark for fonts. Of course this does not guarantee 
> stability, since the trademark owner may use the trademark for different 
> fonts.
> 
>> This has nothing to do with the 'oddity' of a computer.
> 
> I think it is odd that your computer contains a font that apparently 
> violates trademark laws.

I think it's more that Bernhard's computer actually _doesn't_ contain a 
font called "Times". I suspect that the browser is coded to accept the 
name but display whatever default it has to hand (but that's a guess).

///Peter

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> There's not much point in listing Helvetica _after_ Arial, 

On the contrary, that's exactly where it _should_ go.
Systems without Arial (eg many non-Microsoft systems) will then move to 
the next name (Helvetica, which such systems are more likely to have).
///Peter

>> And you would be wrong; see the classic "Why you should avoid the
>> Verdana font [on the Web]",
>> http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html
>
> You have quoted my text improperly, without indicating it as quoted, i.e. as
> if it were your words.

A honest mistake, presenting your ideas as my own is the least of my intentions. ;)

>> Anyone who creates a page like that do not know anything about design
>> and type.
>
> Now that's plain stupid: instead of presenting counterarguments to the
> arguments presented on the page you start flaming the page appearance, and
> without justification at that.

It is not stupid at all. The message and form are always connected, or at least should be. If you present your ideas about usage of typefaces (fonts) with extremely poor design like that it diminish credibility significantly.

>> That page is just plain illegible
>
> It mostly uses the font the user has chosen, so you are saying that _you_
> did not configure _your_ browser to use a default font face and size that
> _you_ prefer, and now you are accusing the page of that.

I always let browser to use designers choice, if the font is not specified it is browsers default (Opera). If you use background pattern like that you might as well set the text with dingbats.

>> and the W3C buttons at
>> the bottom do not help that much.
>
> Of course they don't, but they're the crap recommended by the W3C and used
> on millions of pages, so raising the issue in this context is just pointless
> diversion.

No, it is not pointless. Web is full of computer geeks who think that the most important aspect of design is to follow W3C standards. In this particular page it is about the only thing that is right or at least well done. However, I always check my designs with W3C validator because it is helps a lot in making compatible pages.

>> Instead of avoiding Verdana we
>> should avoid (making) pages like that.
>
> Your accusations are unsound, but even if they weren't, you wouldn't have
> refuted any of its _content_.

Like said, connected.

Jukka

Scripsit Peter Flynn:

>>> font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;
>>> font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;
>
> That will fall flat on its face for many older Unix/Linux systems
> because Verdana, Arial, and Georgia were done for Microsoft Windows,
> and were not available for other systems until later.

That won't fall any flatter than into the use of sans-serif or serif, 
respectively, when the specific fonts listed are not available on the user's 
system.

> The only web-safe spec is serif, sans-serif, or monospace.

There's nothing particularly safe with them.

> Let the user decide (via browser config) what fonts to use.

That's what I often tend to do, but then _no_ font-family setting is needed.

> If the client or
> designer gets all upset and panicky about "people must see my fonts"
> then do them as a graphic or use PDF instead.

There's a difference between demanding "people must see my fonts" and 
suggesting a particular font or list of fonts. Many web authors don't 
understand this difference, but it exists.

-- 
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 

Scripsit Armadillo:

>> Now that's plain stupid: instead of presenting counterarguments to
>> the arguments presented on the page you start flaming the page
>> appearance, and without justification at that.
>
> It is not stupid at all. The message and form are always connected,
> or at least should be.

And so on. But you seem to have missed the "instead of presenting 
counterarguments" part. I guess the reason is that you have none. (Too bad, 
since there _are_ sensible counterarguments against the reasons for avoiding 
Verdana. No, _I_ am not going to present them.)

-- 
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 

Scripsit Peter Flynn:

> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>> There's not much point in listing Helvetica _after_ Arial,
> 
> On the contrary, that's exactly where it _should_ go.
> Systems without Arial (eg many non-Microsoft systems) will then move
> to the next name (Helvetica, which such systems are more likely to
> have). ///Peter

Their mutual order matters if and only if _both_ are available.

-- 
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Peter Flynn wrote:
> 
> I think it's more that Bernhard's computer actually _doesn't_ contain a 
> font called "Times". I suspect that the browser is coded to accept the 
> name but display whatever default it has to hand (but that's a guess).
> 
No no... my computer has installed "Times Roman" typfaces, and "Times" 
typefaces. But from different foundries.
The problem stems from a misconception: "Times" is the global family of 
the "Times" typefaces. The specific font we are talking here should be 
"Times Roman". Some webdesigner on Mac-system use font-family:Time; in 
their CSS, but this fails on my system as it should be "Times Roman".

bernhard

-- 
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply

>>> Now that's plain stupid: instead of presenting counterarguments to
>>> the arguments presented on the page you start flaming the page
>>> appearance, and without justification at that.
>>
>> It is not stupid at all. The message and form are always connected,
>> or at least should be.
>
> And so on. But you seem to have missed the "instead of presenting
> counterarguments" part. I guess the reason is that you have none. (Too bad,
> since there _are_ sensible counterarguments against the reasons for avoiding
> Verdana. No, _I_ am not going to present them.)

The only half-argument found on that page excluding the bad design is "It may appear too big". Doah!

Verdana is simply one of the most legible (if not readable) typefaces/fonts on screen even if it means using fixed pixel values. There are not to many fonts/typefaces designed for screen. With current available screen resolution it is often the best choice because it works well in small sizes and it looks quite good in bigger sizes too. Arial is too narrow and do not create as good 'word images' as Verdana. Georgia about works in longer texts but it is better than Times New Roman which often looks a bit cluttered.

I design printed body text a lot and prefer classic typefaces like Caslon, Garamond (NOT ITC!) or Sabon but text on screen is a whole different beast.

Jukka

"If I'd like to read I'd go to school" - Butthead

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Scripsit Peter Flynn:
> 
>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>> There's not much point in listing Helvetica _after_ Arial,
>>
>> On the contrary, that's exactly where it _should_ go.
>> Systems without Arial (eg many non-Microsoft systems) will then move
>> to the next name (Helvetica, which such systems are more likely to
>> have). ///Peter
> 
> Their mutual order matters if and only if _both_ are available.

So a machine with no Arial but with a working Helvetica would display 
*what*, given "Arial,Helvetica"?

This is the case with my antique Sun IPX running an equally ancient 
Netscape -- it displays the Helvetica -- but it's in another location 
right now and I'm not going to try and run an X session over its 
connection :-)

///Peter

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Peter Flynn wrote:

> So a machine with no Arial

Does such a creature exist?

> but with a working Helvetica would display *what*,
> given "Arial,Helvetica"?

Helvetica.

-- 
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author:Alan.J.Flavell

Wow, this thread sparked much more debate than I anticipated.  I hope
others are gaining some useful knowledge from it all.

It seems that the end result is, no, the chart or list I'm looking for
doesn't exist.  But for the benefit of the doubt, let me clarify
exactly what I'm looking for and why I'm looking for it.

As a designer, I've often felt restricted by font usage on the web.
I've used many of the suggestions offered, such as embedding fonts in
images, Flash, etc, but in my opinion, that's not good enough
anymore.  The web has seen over 10 years of mainstream use.  Standards
such as CSS, JavaScript, etc. have been developed.  Yet, we can't seem
to come up with a standard, cross-platform solution for fonts.  If you
don't want to use the workarounds listed above on a particular
project, you limit yourself to the same fonts over and over -- Arial,
Verdana, Times New Roman, etc.

So what I was hoping to find was that someone had compiled a list of
fonts released with each version of every OS released since about 1998
(with no additional programs or plugins installed, just to be safe).
Hey, you never know *what* you'll find on the Net, right?  My hope was
that this master list would be broken down by rank somehow.  In other
words, we'd expect to see the basic fonts at the top of the list, but
maybe... just maybe... there would be a ray of light for designers.
Maybe they'd notice that a few new fonts are pushing their way to the
top of the ranked list, meaning that those fonts are becoming
increasingly supported on Windows, Mac and Linux alike.  Perhaps
something we could start using in our designs natively?  Ahh, that
would be a breath of fresh air.

Am I an idealist?  Maybe.  But, it's nice to daydream.....

Scripsit Armadillo:

> The only half-argument found on that page excluding the bad design is
> "It may appear too big". Doah!

It seems that you finally actually read the page,
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html
but you still failed to understand its argument. No wonder you cannot 
present a counterargument.

If you had understood the argument, you would have seen that there is a 
choice between two nasty alternatives:
1) not setting the font size (and how would things look then, assuming that 
the browser's basic font size is suitable for typical default fonts or 
somewhat larger, as it often is?)
2) setting font size to essentially smaller than the user-selected size (and 
what would then happen when Verdana is not available, or just won't be used 
for one reason or another?).

Then you would have to choose whichever you find the lesser of evils and 
defend it.

-- 
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 

philaphan80@yahoo.com wrote:

> Wow, this thread sparked much more debate than I anticipated.  I hope
> others are gaining some useful knowledge from it all.
> 
> It seems that the end result is, no, the chart or list I'm looking for
> doesn't exist.  But for the benefit of the doubt, let me clarify
> exactly what I'm looking for and why I'm looking for it.
> 
> As a designer, I've often felt restricted by font usage on the web.
> I've used many of the suggestions offered, such as embedding fonts in
> images, Flash, etc, but in my opinion, that's not good enough
> anymore.  The web has seen over 10 years of mainstream use.  Standards
> such as CSS, JavaScript, etc. have been developed.  Yet, we can't seem
> to come up with a standard, cross-platform solution for fonts.  If you
> don't want to use the workarounds listed above on a particular
> project, you limit yourself to the same fonts over and over -- Arial,
> Verdana, Times New Roman, etc.
> 
> So what I was hoping to find was that someone had compiled a list of
> fonts released with each version of every OS released since about 1998
> (with no additional programs or plugins installed, just to be safe).
> Hey, you never know *what* you'll find on the Net, right?  My hope was
> that this master list would be broken down by rank somehow.  In other
> words, we'd expect to see the basic fonts at the top of the list, but
> maybe... just maybe... there would be a ray of light for designers.
> Maybe they'd notice that a few new fonts are pushing their way to the
> top of the ranked list, meaning that those fonts are becoming
> increasingly supported on Windows, Mac and Linux alike.  Perhaps
> something we could start using in our designs natively?  Ahh, that
> would be a breath of fresh air.
> 
> Am I an idealist?  Maybe.  But, it's nice to daydream.....
> 

Lists of fonts included with operating systems and some applications 
do exist, but they're totally useless for what you hava in mind. Just 
because a font is "included" doesn't mean that it's automatically 
installed, or even if installed, it doesn't mean that the user hasn't 
UNinstalled it. Or, as has been already pointed out, users can 
override whatever you've coded into a web page anyway.

There have been two attempts to provide methods for embedding fonts in 
webpages, one by Bitstream (TrueDoc) and one by Microsoft (WEFT). Both 
are notable for their extreme lack of acceptance by users, by web 
designers, by browser makers, and I would imagine by font foundries' 
attorneys.

You can find what fonts are included (not necessarily installed) with
Microsoft operating systems and applications at:

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fonts/default.aspx
(Vista fonts aren't yet included in the list)

  - Character

> Lists of fonts included with operating systems and some applications
> do exist, but they're totally useless for what you hava in mind. Just
> because a font is "included" doesn't mean that it's automatically
> installed, or even if installed, it doesn't mean that the user hasn't
> UNinstalled it. Or, as has been already pointed out, users can
> override whatever you've coded into a web page anyway.

Those are all very valid points.  However, when applied to the
underlying reason for my request, they become irrelevant.  The only
reason I say that is because some corporate environments tend to
restrict themselves to certain technologies.  If a workaround isn't
possible due to one of these restrictions (e.g. using text within a
Flash plugin) as a designer, you're stuck.

You're right -- a list of "included" fonts won't be perfect (though,
there would still need to be a few fonts installed by default or the
OS wouldn't be able to display any text at all).  But when I'm wearing
the "corporate designer with restrictions" hat, I already know that
I'm not working in the ideal situation from the start.  So, what I
need in that siutation is the least common denominator.  In other
words, if I choose Font X as an alternate to the usual "web-safe"
fonts, will it be supported by the majority of operating systems out
of the box?


> You can find what fonts are included (not necessarily installed) with
> Microsoft operating systems and applications at:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fonts/default.aspx
> (Vista fonts aren't yet included in the list)

Thanks!  That's a good start.

>>  So what I was hoping to find was that someone had compiled a list of
>> fonts released with each version of every OS released since about 1998

Maybe you are the one who does it. ;)

> Lists of fonts included with operating systems and some applications do  
> exist, but they're totally useless for what you hava in mind. Just  
> because a font is "included" doesn't mean that it's automatically  
> installed, or even if installed, it doesn't mean that the user hasn't  
> UNinstalled it. Or, as has been already pointed out, users can override  
> whatever you've coded into a web page anyway.

However, it is not very common average user uninstalls 'system fonts'. In  
fact System Restore in Windows has a bad habit putting fonts back into  
Fonts folder. Also concluding from the posts in this newsgroup users keep  
on installing fonts until system chokes.

In the meantime while waiting a solution we can all of course make Site  
Info page which explains for example which fonts are preferred and where  
they can be  downloaded, if possible.

Jukka

On 4 Apr 2007 09:28:56 -0700, philaphan80@yahoo.com wrote:

>Wow, this thread sparked much more debate than I anticipated.  I hope
>others are gaining some useful knowledge from it all.
>
>It seems that the end result is, no, the chart or list I'm looking for
>doesn't exist.  But for the benefit of the doubt, let me clarify
>exactly what I'm looking for and why I'm looking for it.
>
>As a designer, I've often felt restricted by font usage on the web.
>I've used many of the suggestions offered, such as embedding fonts in
>images, Flash, etc, but in my opinion, that's not good enough
>anymore.  The web has seen over 10 years of mainstream use.  Standards
>such as CSS, JavaScript, etc. have been developed.  Yet, we can't seem
>to come up with a standard, cross-platform solution for fonts.

Um, YES, we have, it's called Flash.  Flash is so fucking advanced it
doesn't even NEED HTML to back it up.  PERFECT liquid sizable text,
embedded font capabilities, proper font anti-aliasing...using HTML at
this point for anything other than blind users who surf with Lynx
really is just fucking stupid.  HTML is a DEAD language...some people
are just a lil slower than others in realizing it.  Take my latest
prototype test model:

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/Forum_Template/index.swf

You can even style your Flash text using CSS or XML.  There is NO good
reason to use HTML over Flash unless you're designing a site for a
blind person.

 --

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm � x �
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the 
best."

"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you 
with it."

"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct 
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others 
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start 
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that 
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just 
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere. 
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, 
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly 
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip 
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand 
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible 
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even 
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you 
don't get sent to me...I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton 
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a 
function?" 

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid. 
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast 
indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken?  Really?  You're sure?  Awww, 
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!"    `, )

On 4 Apr 2007 10:11:57 -0700, philaphan80@yahoo.com wrote:

>Those are all very valid points.  However, when applied to the
>underlying reason for my request, they become irrelevant.  The only
>reason I say that is because some corporate environments tend to
>restrict themselves to certain technologies.  If a workaround isn't
>possible due to one of these restrictions (e.g. using text within a
>Flash plugin) as a designer, you're stuck.

Flash has NO restrictions, it's free for end users (and there are free
development platforms), works on all major browsers on all major
operating systems including Windows, Mac and Linux and it installs
auto-magically in about 22 seconds with no more than 3 clicks of the
mouse.  Further, everyone ALREADY has it installed, since it's very
much a requirement for sites like YouTube and GoogleVideo which now
dominate such a large portion of the net expanse.

 --

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm � x �
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the 
best."

"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you 
with it."

"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct 
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others 
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start 
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that 
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just 
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere. 
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, 
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly 
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip 
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand 
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible 
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even 
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you 
don't get sent to me...I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton 
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a 
function?" 

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid. 
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast 
indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken?  Really?  You're sure?  Awww, 
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!"    `, )

Scripsit philaphan80@yahoo.com:

> Wow, this thread sparked much more debate than I anticipated.

That's very normal on Usenet.

> let me clarify
> exactly what I'm looking for and why I'm looking for it.

It's also typical that people explain what they really want after others 
have discussed at length what he first actually asked.

> As a designer, I've often felt restricted by font usage on the web.

It's best to accept the limitations of the medium you use. You'll be in a 
better competitive position, since others have the same limitations but they 
may fail to see them and they may fight against them in vain, causing 
trouble.

When you can't play much with fonts, concentrate on matters that you _can_ 
play with. Even things as simple as correct punctuation characters (you 
know, curly quotes and real dashes) make a difference, as long as most web 
authors don't care about them. Or think about color schemes - so many pages 
use colors in a manner that is both esthetically awful and pragmatically (in 
usability) poor that you need to do very little in order to excel. Actually, 
just not setting any colors at all is a great improvement over many designs, 
though I'm not saying that this is always the best option.

> I've used many of the suggestions offered, such as embedding fonts in
> images, Flash, etc, but in my opinion, that's not good enough
> anymore.

It never was. It's futile fighting against the limitations and creates 
either serious usability problems or very serious usability problems. Well, 
sometimes just minor usability problems, if you are both careful and lucky.

> Yet, we can't seem
> to come up with a standard, cross-platform solution for fonts.

That was never the goal. The strength of the web is in its flexibility, not 
in its capability to reproduce the fixed formats of print publishing.

> So what I was hoping to find was that someone had compiled a list of
> fonts released with each version of every OS released since about 1998

That wouldn't help you. Besides, it would contain many operating systems 
that you never heard of and that you need not know about.

> Am I an idealist?

That cannot be judged from what you have written, but your idea of listing 
fonts and drawing conclusions from it is just naive, not idealistically 
naive.

-- 
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 

> HTML is a DEAD language...some people
> are just a lil slower than others in realizing it.

No need to be insulting.  You're speaking to a 13-year veteran of web
design here.  I understand what's out there and what the limitations
and workarounds are.  But sometimes, the workarounds often become
common practice.  It's a good idea to go back to the basics once in a
while and re-evaluate those workarounds -- is there now a better way
of doing things?  That's all I was trying to do.

I agree with you that HTML is outdated.  It was never meant to do half
the stuff it's doing today.  That's also why things like JavaScript
and CSS had to be "added on" in order for the web to survive the
demands of users and developers alike.  Someday, someone will create
the *real* Web 2.0 -- one language that will cover everything.  But,
until then, we'll continue to use our workarounds.

> There is NO good reason to use HTML over Flash
> unless you're designing a site for a blind person.

And what if I was?  There are sites out there for blind people, you
know.  Plus, what about phones and other gizmos running mobile
browsers?  Not all of them support Flash.  If you're concerned about
support for a particular project on any of these browsers, your
workarounds become limited quite fast.  Native support then becomes
key.

> However, it is not very common average user uninstalls 'system fonts'.

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking.  That's why I figured that a
list of fonts installed *by default* would help.  It wouldn't become
the new bible for fonts on the web, but its information would be
helpful, at the very least.


> > Wow, this thread sparked much more debate than I anticipated.
>
> That's very normal on Usenet.

Agreed.


> > let me clarify
> > exactly what I'm looking for and why I'm looking for it.
>
> It's also typical that people explain what they really want after others
> have discussed at length what he first actually asked.

As I told Mad Hatter, there's no need to resort to insults.  Let's
continue with a civilized conversation, please.

The reason people got the chance to discuss things at length is
twofold: (1) I wasn't able to check the forum until I returned to work
this morning and (2) many posters went off-topic debating other sub-
issues.  I can't be responsible for that.

I sensed that a few helpful posters needed more information to
determine how to guide me and I responded appropriately.


> It's best to accept the limitations of the medium you use.

I disagree.  It's best to *expect* the limitations, yes, but
acceptance doesn't allow for innovation.  Most of the inventions we've
come to take for granted today were built by those who felt their
current situations were unacceptable and needed change.


> > Yet, we can't seem
> > to come up with a standard, cross-platform solution for fonts.
>
> That was never the goal. The strength of the web is in its flexibility, not
> in its capability to reproduce the fixed formats of print publishing.

True, to a point.  The goal of the web *was*, at one point, to
reproduce the fixed formats of print publishing.  It was a reporting
tool -- no more, no less.  We made it what it is today by demanding
more from it.  Its flexibility became the new goal and, with every new
implementation of web standards in every new version of a browser,
we're reaching that goal slowly but surely.


> > So what I was hoping to find was that someone had compiled a list of
> > fonts released with each version of every OS released since about 1998
>
> That wouldn't help you. Besides, it would contain many operating systems
> that you never heard of and that you need not know about.

Of course it would.  It would easily show a cross-section of the most
common *native* fonts available for use in web design without any
necessary workarounds.  How could that not be helpful?


> your idea of listing fonts and drawing conclusions from it is just naive

If that's so, then why do the majority of web designers use Arial,
Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica, etc.?  At some point, didn't we
all learn that those fonts are supported by a large slice of users'
machines?  What's so naive about expanding that list a little?

Andreas Prilop wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Peter Flynn wrote:
> 
>> So a machine with no Arial
> 
> Does such a creature exist?

Some non-Windows systems.

>> but with a working Helvetica would display *what*,
>> given "Arial,Helvetica"?
> 
> Helvetica.

As I thought.

///Peter

Armadillo wrote:
> (. . .)
>>> That page is just plain illegible
> (. . .)
> If you use background pattern like that you might as well set the text with dingbats.

Um, it's perfectly legible on my system, a WinXP box, and not a high-end 
one at that.
I didn't even notice that there *was* a background until you 
specifically mentioned it.

Armadillo wrote:
> (. . .)
> With current available screen resolution [Verdana] is often the best choice
> because it works well in small sizes and it looks quite good in bigger sizes too. 

I think someone else raised this as one of the advantages of Verdana.
However, it seems to me to be an empty argument.
The reason that it "works well in small sizes" is that it isn't as small 
as it says it is.

(Yeah, yeah, the foundry can assign any any actual size it wants for a 
given point size,
but at a practical level, if the designer is setting everything else in 
10pt type but has
a certain bit in Verdana that is 10% larger than the rest of the design, 
that's not helpful.)

Seems (to me) that it would make more sense -- or at least as much sense --
to just use Helvetica or Arial and, if the result is too small to be 
readable,
use a bigger point size.

Scripsit philaphan80@yahoo.com:

>> It's also typical that people explain what they really want after
>> others have discussed at length what he first actually asked.
>
> As I told Mad Hatter, there's no need to resort to insults.

If you took my statement as an insult, you are far too sensitive. Actually, 
_I_ could take it as an insult that you anonymously accused me in public for 
insulting you when I simply described a behavioral pattern.

>>> So what I was hoping to find was that someone had compiled a list of
>>> fonts released with each version of every OS released since about
>>> 1998
>>
>> That wouldn't help you. Besides, it would contain many operating
>> systems that you never heard of and that you need not know about.
>
> Of course it would.

The resource that I referred to contains far more useful information, since 
it describes the _frequencies_ of font availability - rather unreliably, but 
still much better than a guess.

Yet, neither a pure list nor the frequency information helps you at all in 
your stated goal of "a standard, cross-platform solution for fonts". The 
frequency information describes what fonts can be expected to be available 
very often, fairly often, rarely, or very rarely. For such purposes, it 
doesn't really matter that a figure of 80% could well reflect an actual 
percentage somewhere between (say) 65% and 95%.

>> your idea of listing fonts and drawing conclusions from it is just
>> naive
>
> If that's so, then why do the majority of web designers use Arial,
> Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica, etc.?

They copy code. Simple as that. They also make copying errors ("Ariel" is 
remarkably common), but there are many other symptoms as well that indicate 
lack of analysis. Authors often write (in a font-family declaration) a list 
of fonts containing many fonts that they never actually saw in the wild, not 
to mention actually testing how their page looks when that font is used. 
(That's why so many typos in font names go undetected.)

> At some point, didn't we
> all learn that those fonts are supported by a large slice of users'
> machines?

No. People just copy code. By the way, Helvetica belongs to the "rare" 
category simply because it's normally not installed on Windows PCs, which 
dominate the population.

> What's so naive about expanding that list a little?

You should now know, from Code Style site I mentioned, that Arial Black, 
Comic Sans MS, Impact, Courier New, Lucida Console, and Tahoma are all in 
the "very often category". Exactly what are you going to do with this 
information in designing the use of fonts on web pages? (The only font among 
them that has reasonable chances of being useful on web pages is Courier 
New - if your page discusses computer code or other text that is best 
rendered in a monospace font. But it's mostly the default monospace font 
anyway.)

-- 
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 

>> With current available screen resolution [Verdana] is often the best  
>> choice
>> because it works well in small sizes and it looks quite good in bigger  
>> sizes too.
>
> I think someone else raised this as one of the advantages of Verdana.
> However, it seems to me to be an empty argument.
> The reason that it "works well in small sizes" is that it isn't as small  
> as it says it is.

I do not mean that it works better in the same point size but in actual  
size, meaning that character shapes and hinting are better on screen than  
in Arial or Helvetica.

However, it is true that Verdana should have smaller 'nominal' size.

Jukka

anyone that says HTML is dead is living in a bubble.
My biggest projects at 200 + pages for governement agencies is partly html.

Yes, flash is the future which is very close at hand. But to say every 
site on the net is HTML void, is stupid.
maybe I misunderstood your comment? I'm not denying the power flash 
has, I'm mocking your perspective that flash is it. there's so much 
html still being pushed by big design firms... surf other sites other 
than your own once in while :)

On 2007-04-05 03:46:44 -0300, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> said:

> Scripsit philaphan80@yahoo.com:
> 
>>> It's also typical that people explain what they really want after
>>> others have discussed at length what he first actually asked.
>> 
>> As I told Mad Hatter, there's no need to resort to insults.
> 
> If you took my statement as an insult, you are far too sensitive. 
> Actually, _I_ could take it as an insult that you anonymously accused 
> me in public for insulting you when I simply described a behavioral 
> pattern.
> 
>>>> So what I was hoping to find was that someone had compiled a list of
>>>> fonts released with each version of every OS released since about
>>>> 1998
>>> 
>>> That wouldn't help you. Besides, it would contain many operating
>>> systems that you never heard of and that you need not know about.
>> 
>> Of course it would.
> 
> The resource that I referred to contains far more useful information, 
> since it describes the _frequencies_ of font availability - rather 
> unreliably, but still much better than a guess.
> 
> Yet, neither a pure list nor the frequency information helps you at all 
> in your stated goal of "a standard, cross-platform solution for fonts". 
> The frequency information describes what fonts can be expected to be 
> available very often, fairly often, rarely, or very rarely. For such 
> purposes, it doesn't really matter that a figure of 80% could well 
> reflect an actual percentage somewhere between (say) 65% and 95%.
> 
>>> your idea of listing fonts and drawing conclusions from it is just
>>> naive
>> 
>> If that's so, then why do the majority of web designers use Arial,
>> Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica, etc.?
> 
> They copy code. Simple as that. They also make copying errors ("Ariel" 
> is remarkably common), but there are many other symptoms as well that 
> indicate lack of analysis. Authors often write (in a font-family 
> declaration) a list of fonts containing many fonts that they never 
> actually saw in the wild, not to mention actually testing how their 
> page looks when that font is used. (That's why so many typos in font 
> names go undetected.)
> 
>> At some point, didn't we
>> all learn that those fonts are supported by a large slice of users'
>> machines?
> 
> No. People just copy code. By the way, Helvetica belongs to the "rare" 
> category simply because it's normally not installed on Windows PCs, 
> which dominate the population.
> 
>> What's so naive about expanding that list a little?
> 
> You should now know, from Code Style site I mentioned, that Arial 
> Black, Comic Sans MS, Impact, Courier New, Lucida Console, and Tahoma 
> are all in the "very often category". Exactly what are you going to do 
> with this information in designing the use of fonts on web pages? (The 
> only font among them that has reasonable chances of being useful on web 
> pages is Courier New - if your page discusses computer code or other 
> text that is best rendered in a monospace font. But it's mostly the 
> default monospace font anyway.)


-- 
Welcome to Papa Joe's

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 22:56:12 -0300, Papa Joe <Sorry> wrote:

>anyone that says HTML is dead is living in a bubble.
>My biggest projects at 200 + pages for governement agencies is partly html.
>
>Yes, flash is the future which is very close at hand. But to say every 
>site on the net is HTML void, is stupid.
>maybe I misunderstood your comment? I'm not denying the power flash 
>has, I'm mocking your perspective that flash is it. there's so much 
>html still being pushed by big design firms... surf other sites other 
>than your own once in while :)

What I'm saying is that ALL the HTML code/sites that currently exist
could be made BETTER (more cross compatible, more user friendly) if
they were remade in Flash.  Even for just plain text sites since you
get proper font anti-aliasing, you can embed fonts and you get TRUE
liquid element resizing (not just liquid space).

There are a couple problems though:
1. The VAST majority of developers DO NOT have the skills to port
their existing content over to Flash and the fact is they probably
wasted THOUSANDS of dollars on education costs that catered to
inferior languages and as such most of them are going to find
themselves out of work and out of luck in the next five years if they
can't keep up.

2. Lynx currently can't display the text content of a Flash file...so
for blind users, or more importantly for GOVERNMENT sites which HAVE
to cater to the .00001% of blind users or people who wish they were
blind who are using Lynx, they still need to include a plain text fall
back version in HTML...at least until Lynx or some other browser maker
comes out with a browser that can directly display the text content of
the flash file (search engine spiders can already do it so it's not
far off).  At that point HTML will be completely pointless.  Flash is
so advanced it doesn't even need any HTML to display it:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/Forum_Template/index.swf

Try resizing your browser window on that prototype site, that is a
TRUE liquid site, where the elements themselves alter in size, not
just the space they're displayed in.  Flash is capable of resizing
elements via bilinear and bicubic resizing where as all web browsers
currently only support nearest neighbor resizing of images and
elements (I haven't checked IE7 yet though).

So the bottom line is that it SHOULD and it WILL be a dead language
and anyone still designing their sites off HTML are just designing for
obsolescence.  Government entities still need to include plain text
fall back versions, but there's no reason why their front ends
shouldn't be in Flash for MAXIMUM cross compatibility...unless of
course, as I said, the developers don't have the skill and expertise.
Those types aren't likely to last much longer though, especially as
more people start designing simple/plain text TRUE liquid sites in
Flash.  When that starts happening EVERYBODY is gonna want it and all
the HTML developers are gonna find themselves out of a job.

 --

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm � x �
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the 
best."

"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you 
with it."

"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct 
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others 
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start 
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that 
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just 
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere. 
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, 
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly 
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip 
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand 
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible 
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even 
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you 
don't get sent to me...I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton 
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a 
function?" 

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid. 
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast 
indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken?  Really?  You're sure?  Awww, 
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!"    `, )

Scripsit Papa Joe:

> anyone that says HTML is dead is living in a bubble.

What are you babbling about? You sent a followup to my message, quoted it 
below your own text, and apparently didn't read my message at all - it 
contains nothing related to the foolish claim that you are refuting.

Please keep using the same forged identity as long as you post rubbish. 
Thank you in advance.

-- 
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 

Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead is purely coincidental.

>>> It's also typical that people explain what they really want after
>>> others have discussed at length what he first actually asked.
>>
>> As I told Mad Hatter, there's no need to resort to insults.
>
> If you took my statement as an insult, you are far too sensitive.  
> Actually, _I_ could take it as an insult that you anonymously accused me  
> in public for insulting you when I simply described a behavioral pattern.

It is very common in Usenet that second person (you) is not used but third  
person (they, people) is used istead. The benifit is to be able to  
disguise accusations etc. in more vague form. This is of course violation  
of etiquette, or to to be more precise a cowardly act.

However, if the true intention is to enlight other people about for  
example a behavioral pattern it is way off the subject and should be  
posted to a appropriate newsgroup.

Jukka

Coreections

> third person (they, people) ...

third person plural (they, people) ...

> violation of etiquette, or to to be more ...

violation of etiquette, or to be more ...

Jukka