Posted by dorayme on 12/13/06 20:52

In article <7n4554-oen.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk>,
Toby Inkster <usenet200611@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:

> John Hosking wrote:
>
> > font-family: "Comic Sans MS" "Veranda" sans-serif;
> >
> > 1) font alternatives are supposed to be comma-separated; and
> > 2) By "Veranda", do you mean "Verdana"?
> > 3) The use of Verdana isn't always your best choice, but for now, it's
> > not your biggest problem. (But pay attention over time to discussions
> > about font choices, so you can decide for yourself).
>
> 4) "Comic Sans MS" is one of the most horrible fonts on the planet.
> 5) The two specified fonts look absolutely nothing like each other, so
> using one as a fall back for the other doesn't really make sense.

Not my favourite font either but it was a dear wish of a client
for her organization's site (to match their publications) so I
went into battle and won great swathes of territory with stuff
like that it is harder to read in general on a screen, it takes
up too much line height, I forget if i mentioned it looks too
cute, no, I think I piked out on that one. But the arguments
hardly counted for headings. So it was agreed that main headings
only should be CS. And this looked a tiny odd so I threw in all
<h2>s as well.

I used a fallback of Arial to make this sense: if a user had no
CS, the headings would head in a direction I wanted. But that I
should be so lucky, everyone seems to have CS. Does not seem to
me too horrible in small doses anyway...

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]