|
|
Posted by Jeff on 01/07/08 18:34
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Scripsit Adrienne Boswell:
>
>> I inherited a website from my boss, who has Palantino on her computer.
>
<snip>
>
> So you are suggesting that browsers primarily display your page using
> Palatino Linotype but you haven't actually checked how they look like
> when presented that way?
I think we all get a bit jaded, particularly when working with someone
else's design! This hasn't happened to you?
>
> Including Times after Times New Roman sounds pointless. Hands up, has
> someone ever seen a system _with_ Times but _without_ Times New Roman? A
> system without either of them is imaginable, so the serif fallback makes
> sense, _assuming_ that you have some reasonable reason for preferring a
> serif font even against the user's choice of basic font.
>
> Palatino Linotype is not very close to Times New Roman. Book Antiqua
> would be a closer substitute, I think, and so would Georgia, if you
> accept its lowercase ("old-style") digits. Times New Roman is more
> condensed and looks smaller. I think the odds are that a system's
> default serif font is _either_ Times New Roman _or_ something more
> similar to Palatino Linotype than TNR is.
I'm getting a little tired of using Verdana and Times. What's your
take on expanding the font list to something like shown here:
<URL: http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html />
Oh, note that there is not ordinarily a Palatino Linotype on the Mac
but Palatino.
Jeff
>
> So I'd say that { font-family: "Palatino Linotype", serif; } is enough.
>
>> So, the lesson here is to ALWAYS include a fallback and the
>> appropriate generic font.
>
> Is it? How many users actually select some _strange_ font as their
> browser's default font? How many of them actually _want_ to see text in
> that font when pages don't specify their own font?
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|