|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 10/24/05 12:55
With neither quill nor qualm, Arne quothed:
> Once upon a time *Neredbojias* wrote:
> >
> > Poley's main argument is that Verdana is slightly larger than the
> > average font at the same size-setting. So big deal. Maybe the author
> > wants his/her font to be slightly larger for improved readability,
> > which, indeed, the font provides.
>
> So why not use Arial with 10-11px if size in pixels necessarily want
> to be used, insted of Verdana 9px.
The look. Verdana has a fuller, blockier look than Arial which can be
preferable at times and is also more desirable from the accessibility
standpoint.
> > Poley implies that authors are apt to specify a smaller css font-size
> > setting to compensate for Verdana's largesse over, say, Arial. Gee
> > whiz, if that's the only _mistake_ an author makes, he's doing quite
> > well on the whole. Anything can be abused by improper usage.
>
> Anything can be abused by improper usage, thank's to IE that allow
> authors to "take over" the users browser in many ways. And is also
> very happy to accept nasty scripts from e.g. ActiveX and VBscript that
> a evil author put on the web. Fortunately other browsers can't be abused.
Yes, MS was probably not as astute as it could have been in the area of
security, but that's business. I don't think BG is losing any sleep
over it.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|