Is it just me, or do sites degrade somewhat when seen on a PC with Arial? Drives me nuts!
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Further to this, what are peoples favourite fonts to use - so that
they work equally well on both platforms. I imagine there are quite a
few instances where a site is designed, previewed on the Mac and then
the font has to be changed as it either isnt available on the PC or it
just doesn’t render well in IE.
Would be interesting to hear peoples opinions.
Nathan Garner
Partner
Austin Wells Design Consultants
1 Elmgate Drive, Littledown, Bournemouth BH7 7EF
+44 (0)1202 301271
email@hidden
http://www.awdc-creative.com
Member of NAPP
On 3 Feb 2009, at 18:06, WebWorker wrote:
Is it just me, or do sites degrade somewhat when seen on a PC with
Arial? Drives me nuts!
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
You are save using the standard font in the FW menu. You can add some extra fonts like Lucida and Impact.
Here’s a list of common Mac/Windows fonts
and another one
http://media.24ways.org/2007/17/fontmatrix.html
Cheers, Marcel
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Thats great Marcel, a big help.
Which actually render well on a PC. If any?
Nathan Garner
Partner
Austin Wells Design Consultants
1 Elmgate Drive, Littledown, Bournemouth BH7 7EF
+44 (0)1202 301271
email@hidden
http://www.awdc-creative.com
Member of NAPP
On 4 Feb 2009, at 05:02, Helveticus wrote:
You are save using the standard font in the FW menu. You can add
some extra fonts like Lucida and Impact.Here’s a list of common Mac/Windows fonts
and another one
Cheers, Marcel
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
I’ve found that either Verdana or Trebuchet are more attractive alternatives to Arial when I need a sans serif font. Also they both look fine on PC’s.
Richard
On 3 Feb 2009, 5:06 pm, WebWorker wrote:
Is it just me, or do sites degrade somewhat when seen on a PC with Arial? Drives me nuts!
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
There’s very little love for Arial out there:
http://www.ms-studio.com/articles.html
Walter
On Feb 3, 2009, at 1:06 PM, WebWorker wrote:
Is it just me, or do sites degrade somewhat when seen on a PC with
Arial? Drives me nuts!
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Sometime around 4/2/09 (at 10:42 -0500) pixelart said:
I’ve found that either Verdana or Trebuchet are more attractive
alternatives to Arial when I need a sans serif font. Also they both
look fine on PC’s.
Verdana, Georgia and, to a slightly lesser extent Trebuchet were
designed to work well at small text sizes on screens. Arial wasn’t
meant for this job.
There’s an interesting (to a type-obsessive like me) discussion of
the origins of Arial here:
http://www.ms-studio.com/articles.html
Although do be aware that there’s more vitriol aimed at Arial than I
think is fair. It is unsuitable for body text on screen, just as
Helvetica is, but in print it has characteristics that make it a
slightly softer, less rectangular choice than Helvetica.
The following text comes from the embedded description found in some
versions and formats of Arial:
"Arial contains more humanist characteristics
than many of its predecessors and as such is
more in tune with the mood of the last decades
of the twentieth century. The overall treatment
of curves is softer and fuller than in most
industrial style sans serif faces. Terminal
strokes are cut on the diagonal which helps to
give the face a less mechanical appearance."
This may be modelled on Helvetica to an extent, but it is unarguably
also more humanistic.
Just don’t use it on screen! 
k
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
On 10 Feb 2009, at 12:39, Keith Martin wrote:
This may be modelled on Helvetica to an extent, but it is unarguably
also more humanistic.
And it hurts the eyes.
A plague on Arial in all its forms.
;o)
Heather
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
A plague on Arial in all its forms.
Certainly in all its non-printed forms. And always when not using the
original Monotype designs.
k
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
I think that possibly we have all gotten so unhappy with Arial because
it is often used within a typographically-hamstrung Windows
application (but I repeat myself).
I would posit that any typeface[1], when lovingly set and spaced, and
attended to with care – care born either of years of experience with
old-world tools or really good “default settings” (as in recent Adobe
apps with Optical Spacing turned on) – will look pretty good.
Conversely, even the finest OpenType face, with thousands of hand-
tuned kerning pairs, will look like the typographic equivalent of a
slowly-spreading puddle of dog-sick when “set” using Microsoft Word on
Windows.
Walter
- I’m still not sure about Arnold Boecklin.
On Feb 10, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Keith Martin wrote:
A plague on Arial in all its forms.
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options