Slashdot Mirror
What Makes a Good Web Font
SitePoint writes "We've published an article on the way in which fonts are used on the Web. We found that a large "x-height" (the height of a lowercase 'x' in relation to the total height of the font) makes fonts more readable on a computer screen, as does a wide "punch width" (the width of the hole inside letters such as 'o' and 'b'). Helvetica is a good font to use online. The designer's choice of fonts is usually limited by the user's OS, but techniques such as SIFr (example) are allowing Web designers to provide their own fonts."
Surely the choice of font ought to be something individuals can set up in their web browser. A website doesn't really have much business selecting particular named fonts, content versus presentation and all that. If you use CSS then you can quite reasonably limit yourself to normal, sans-serif and monospaced - and trust that any sane web browser will choose something readable on the user's screen.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Well, at least the folks that run slashdot seem to think large italicized blocks of text are readable. I beg to differ.
Web designers should design their pages to accomodate whatever font the user requires. I often use Firefox's Increase and Decrease Font Size features to make text more readable for me, especially if it's latw at night and I'm looking at a web page filled with financial data, etc. Well-designed sites seem to work well with the feature; others that use boundaries, tables, etc. to "force" text into certain areas of the page don't scale well at all. Also, the user should be able to switch between sans serif and serif fonts depending on whether they're scanning for data (sans-serif) or doing long-term reading (serif.)
Someone should tell the design community that every user can't read every point size or font face well on their computer. This becomes increasingly important now that LCDs have such tiny native resolutions. Large ones can came native at 1400x1050 now, making default font sizes incredibly small for those of us not blessed with perfect vision. For those who don't need magnifying software on their computer but also don't want to run a high-end LCD at a lousy resolution, this is the best idea.
And yes...
It's also searchable AND displayable without FLASH.
This technique just puts a FLASH "movie" over the original text. If you don't have FLASH, you will just see the original text without the "FLASH fonts"... no big deal.
If you search, the browser will find the text BEHIND the FLASH movie. Everything is fine man.
IMO, this is indeed a Good Thing (TM).
If I clone myself, can I call it a thread?
If a girl winks to us, can I call it a race condition?
Well first of all, most browsers do have an option to set fonts and override other page's fonts if that's really what you want to do.
In IE, it's under Tools / Internet Options / Fonts. To make your chosen fonts override fonts set by Web pages, look under Tools / Internet Options / Accessibility, and there's an option labeled, "Ignore font styles specified on Web pages."
In Firefox, it's under Tools / Options / General / Fonts and Colors. The option to force Firefox to override fonts set by the Web is at the bottom, labeled, "Always use my: Fonts"
In Opera, well, you're on your own, because I haven't played with it enough to know. I suspect that it's extremely similar, though.
What you're complaining about seems to be that the Web is increasingly becoming not just about content, but about presentation as well. I know, I know, that's not what it was originally set up for, but it's changed an awful lot over the years. Some sites just don't work right without the ability to say not only what is on a page, but how it's on the page. I'm not talking about not working from a design or coding point of view, I mean from a structural and stylistic point of view.
As for me, I don't mind. I say, let the site designers present the information to me the way they want to. Yes, sometimes it comes out hideous. Personally, I think whoever picked Bitstream Vera Sans for the ImageMagick home page should be shot. (In the leg; I'm not a capital punishment kind of guy...) If a site looks bad enough, I might avoid it site altogether.
But most of the time, when site designers dink around with the formatting and style, it doesn't degrade from the look and usability. Sometimes, it turns out really spiffy.
So unless a site proves that it's not worth looking at, I think giving them the benefit of a doubt and letting them selecting particular named font is perfectly okay.
Besides, who wants a world in which every frickin' web page looks exactly the same? I kind of like that there are so many different styles of presentation out there in addition to the virtually infinite content!
The user often doesn't know that they can change fonts. My wife occasionally does web design for her clients. It isn't her main line of work but sometimes a client wants that as part of the package. Invariably they want pretty fonts. Usually "pretty" is defined as what they personally like. It takes a fair bit of education to convince the client that they should not be specifying fonts, that the viewer should do that. And then it takes a bit of education to show the client how to set the font preference on their browser.
I found that while long ascenders and descenders (the tails on 'f's and 'g's, and the strokes on 'h's and 'p's) were fun to write and looked stylish, they actually added very little to the legibility, while taking up a lot of space. I also found that making the centre parts of letters bigger did help a lot -- even if it meant leaving smaller gaps between letters (to the point of collision in some cases).
One other discovery was that printing (writing each letter separately) was practically as fast as writing joined-up, and again, much more readable, especially at speed. (I really don't understand why joined-up writing is seen as more desirable or mature -- it's even a requirement for some school exams -- when it seems to have no practical benefit...)
Ever since then, my writing has been like that: printed, with large rounded centres to the letters and very minimal ascenders and descenders. I find it's just as fast as before, vastly more readable, and degrades much better when I'm in a hurry. And I still get compliments on my clear and distinctive writing.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
While I like the idea of a user being able to override a web designer's selection, I don't understand the "all fonts are evil!" attitude. Color selection and choice of graphics both can ruin a page, but they also can contribute substantially to the aesthetic and help communicate the mood of the page. Fonts are the same. Even if you think the aesthetic argument is bunk, and that things on the Internet shouldn't be visually appealing, the visual quality of a website does communicate a lot about the effort and seriousness of the designer. Would you buy investment services from a site that used green courier text on a black background and had no graphics? And certainly mood or tone is significant, and carries actually information, difficult to verbalize though it may be.
Though I'm not a fan of flash and javascript hacks, I do think there need to be better and more widely-implemented methods for font embedding than exist today. I'm glad I can choose better fonts when I find poorly designed sites, but I'll not deny a communicator his or her tools without reason, and see font selection as one of those tools.
Kerning, that is aligning of individual pairs of letters, is one of the basic concepts in typography. Still, a typical KDE/GNOME/whatever editor/browser is pretty likely to have no kerning at all. It can have translucent background and jumping rubbery icons, and no kerning. This gives that chaotic, uneven look to typical computer typography, and can make the text harder to read.
Kerning is SO simple to implement in software, and SO effective in improving the text readability, and it is still barely used on computer displays as of now.
This is why you can specify multiple fonts/font families in CSS.
p {font-family: Calibri, Trebuchet, Helvetica, sans-serif;}
It will check for Calibri, and use that if the user has it installed. If not, it will check for Trebuchet, then Helvetica, and finally, if the user has none of those installed, it will fall back to whatever the user has set as the default sans-serif font.
If there is a particular font you like, you can provide it for download (well, if you are ALLOWED to provide it for download, many commercial fonts have to be purchased) on your site, perhaps with a little blurb about how this font is sooooo great you just have to try it. The user can (if she wants) download and install the font, and your site will look the way you intended.
/usr/games/fortune
For further reading into the web designer community, poke around sites like the following:
I disagree with the Arial/Helvetica crowd: Serifs make large quantities of text more readable. Sans-serifs such as Arial are readable at a distance, and good for grabbing the eye.
Still, Times/Times New Roman sucks wet farts out of dead pigeons. It was designed to cram maximal text into a newspaper column, which does not resemble today's web pages, books, etc.
Fonts such as Bookman, Palatino, Bodoni -- anything with "book" in the title -- are so much more readable as to be stupid not to use. The same benefits of Helvetica are present: large x-height, big holes. You get less text across a single column, but that's a good thing.
This is probably a job for the W3 folks: select a set of mandatory fonts that every browser must support. There are open-source fonts available that can, like the old Mac fonts and Arial, clone up the classics. We just have to all agree on them to make them compatible.
Design for Use, not Construction!
One thing that Microsoft -- or the people they hired -- got right.
Microsoft used to have some web pages for 'Internet/Web fonts'. These included both a collection of TrueType fonts (including Verdana) and some history and other stuff (e.g. a history of Verdana). The pages were up until a year or two ago.
Then, shortly after I commented to a business analyst (read: specifications author) on the suitability of Verdana, including both the high appeal of the font but also the potential risk of using MS intellectual property and the potential for sharing to cease, I found those MS web pages had been removed. I don't know whether they've since been restored or placed elsewhere.
Regarding the history and intent, translating into suitability, of Verdana, a quick google turns up:
http://www.fonts.com/AboutFonts/Verdana.htm
So I scanned TFA in hope of some new research on web typography re: readability. And found nothing but opinion, not even references to research done elsewhere.
Sure, the author seems to know his typography 101, but how is he backing up his various claims? All I see is "established and time-tested principles of typography" and similar hand-waving.
This-or-that font is more legible than some other font, because ... "I fall firmly in to the camp that believes that sans-serif faces are a more suitable [readable] option." In the article he even states "It is [low screen resolution], more than any other [factor], that defines the recommendations and principles behind good Web typography."
So without research/testing (or references to research/testing), how the hell does the author know which font is more readable than the next?
I'm not saying he's wrong (or that good guesses are worse than no guesses), but he's pointing to various best practices without any research/testing to back up a lot of these claims.
A quick search produced some promising-looking results. Perhaps too much work for a busy web usability professional.
Second link from the search results: Usability News performed user tests on readability in 2001 (A Comparison of Popular Online Fonts: Which is Best and When? by Michael Bernard, Melissa Mills, Michelle Peterson, & Kelsey Storrer).
Their conclusions supports some of his claims, but why should I as a reader have to do his job.. Lazy.668.5
Text selection does not obey any of the standard text selection behaviours for my platform:
Options in the contextual menu are the ones that the page author has chosen to put there, which are quite unrelated to the ones that appear normally in my browser.
The fundamental problem here is that the technology's author has decided that replacing real text is acceptable as long as he manually recreates all the features he expects real text to have. This is, I'm afraid, painfully naive; there's no way for him to know and account for all the ways in which standard text behaves on my platform, and it's unacceptable for him to decide that his content alone gets to behave inconsistently with everything else in my environment.
It's also a lot of wasted work. If you want services like flexible selection, good antialiasing, relevant contextual menus, and inline spellchecking, just provide plain, standard text. My OS will do the rest from there or it won't, and it's none of your concern. These services are not the responsibility of content providers.