Posted by Toby Inkster on 05/09/06 04:16

Albert Wiersch wrote:

> So you would prefer to ignore the issue when the developer prefers a
> certain typeface to be used but is not generally available.

Say I specify:

font-family: "Swis721 BT", "Helvetica", "Arial", sans-serif;

I probably don't care that much if Swis721 BT is not installed that
widely -- after all that is why I specified a few fallbacks.

On the other hand, there are a few font choices that may be worth warning
developers about:

1. If the user has chosen fallback fonts which are known to be
dramatically different to the first font specified. e.g.

font-family: "Arial", serif; /* Arial is not a serif font */
font-family: "Verdana", "Arial"; /* Very different sizes */

2. If the user hasn't specified a CSS generic font name as the last
fallback. e.g.

font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica";
font-family: "Arial", san-serif;
font-family: sans-serif, "Arial";

3. Typos for common font names.

font-family: "Ariel", "Hevletica", sans-serif;

Another potentially useful feature might be given a CSS file like:

BODY
{
font-family: "Lucida Grande", "Tahoma",
"Bitstream Vera Sans", sans-serif;
}

a tool could tell me that on a default Windows XP installation I'd see
body text in Tahoma, but on a default Fedora Core 4 installation it would
be Bitstream Vera Sans, whereas with Mac OS X, I'd get Lucida Grande.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

[Back to original message]