Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>> Georgia is a beautiful font which suits some pages, but you will
>> have to specify alternatives.
>
> No you don't. You may. Just as you can omit font declarations
> completely. Users may see the page on their chosen default font.
True, but if the user wants his/her fonts to be used, there are ways to
force it. The Webmaster often wants to impose certain looks, while the
visitor wants something self-tailored and customised to personal
preferences.
>> font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
>
> That's rather pointless. If Georgia is not available, what makes you
> think Times New Roman would be an improvement over the browser's
> default font? If Times New Roman is not available, the odds are that
> the user's system has only one font anyway.
This is better than attempting a single font. You can try a whole stack of
(what one considers) reasonable fonts. If none of these is found/used,
that's fine too. I tested the above on a Mac, Linux boxes and different
versions of Windows. I don't think it's too discriminatory.
>> font: 160% Georgia, Arial, Serif;
>
> That's much worse than pointless. You are just joking/trolling, right?
No, I copied and pasted something from a site of mine and forgot to modify
it. This corresponded to a story header which had to roughly fit within
some fixed-width one-liner.
>> These should look /relatively/ consistent.
>
> Why would that matter? Do you think that users will compare the look of
> the page on different browsers and laugh at you if they are not
> "consistent"? (In that case, you have them good laugh. Surely Georgia
> and Arial are very different from each other _and_ from the system's
> default serif font.)
That second example was a poor one. I should have omitted it altogether.
*smile*
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
