|
|
Posted by Chaddy2222 on 12/22/05 13:31
Jake wrote:
> In message <Xns9732EF065707jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.4.246>, Jukka K.
> Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> writes
> >Jake <jake@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/newg/weft.htm
> >
> >We can see rather immediately from the URL itself that my prediction was
> >right:
> >Of course, you will not create an exception to the rule that people who
> >advertize WEFT here cannot provide any real-life examples (with "real life"
> >defined as something else than a trivial page, typically with lorem ipsum
> >text as content).
>
> And that would prove ... what exactly?
Ahh well. If I had a site designed for me with font that was that
unreadable...... I would demand a refund.
You can't tell me (or anyone else for that matter) that you would
expect someone to use that type of font on a "real" site and expect
people to read the content.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
>
> Try google.com if you want to try searching for some 'real life
> examples' -- although how they would differ from the page shown you
> haven't said (and I guess you never will).
> >
> >Instead of presenting a real life page, you throw us a pointless WEFT demo
> >you just souped up (using fonts that are both ugly and very hard to read,
> >as advocates of WEFT typically use in their foolish demos).
>
> Yep. Produced on the spur of the moment in response to Andy's comments
> -- 6 embedded fonts on one page. Fonts chosen to show clearly that
> they're not Arial and Times New Roman ;-) ...... as well as the ease
> with which it can be done.
>
> Seems to contradict your claims "...It just isn't practical, and if you
> try to use it for something real, you'll run into problems..." doesn't
> it?
>
> Unless you have something to add, I guess this conversation's come to
> its natural conclusion.
>
> I'll just let the jury decide on this one.
>
> Regards.
> >
>
> --
> Jake (jake@gododdin.demon.co.uk -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|