|
|
Posted by Andy Dingley on 06/04/05 18:38
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 15:42:47 +0100, Toby Inkster
<usenet200504@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:
>What about "monospace"?
Fair point - add monospace.
I skipped cursive because I'm not even sure if that has any reasonable
expectation of default support, beyond the simply illegible.
>The naming of specific fonts in the "font-family" property won't work for
>all of the people, all of the time, but the same can be said of:
The examples you cite have extensive value, and a quite reasonable
expectation of support. Even JavaScript is usually there, quite robust
if it is, and can add much value to a page. Requiring a page to be
minimally useful without it isn;t the same as saying it's so broken we
may as well not bother.
My point here is that the only choice you can make with any real
expectation of success is to suggest Trebuchet or Verdana as
alternatives to Arial, and have these accepted by most of the users.
However they add almost nothing to the page (they're poor fonts anyway,
and they're practically indistinguishable from Arial for most users).
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|