Good design sites? - Page 4

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: Good design sites?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

So the argument is that at lower resolutions, the serifs help the eye
determine the terminal part of the line. Hmm...

Is the difference between reading serif and sans-serif so significant that
it makes sans-serif unsuited for web use? Or is the real-world effect less
of a problem. Remember that you don't actually need to scan the whole
letter when you read! We scan words and phrases, and when we actually do
look at a letter generally Gestalt theory suggests that unless we are
specifically looking for it, we'll never even see the imperfections in

If people generally never read sans-serif in the real world, ok, I can
appreciate how reading a new font is going to require more "noticing". But
no one really reads that way with a font similar to what they're familiar

Re: Good design sites?

Quoted text here. Click to load it


No - this only applies to body text.  A single line of text is easier,
because the problem of vertical extent is so much simpler.

Secondly, there's more variation between "clear" and "unclear"
typography than there is between a blanket serif vs. sans-serif

Here's a site I was looking at tonight -
Ugliness !  Look at the font for that LHS menu.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

What does "see" mean ?

Although we certainly don't consciously observe the entire shape, we
are influenced by it. Gestalt theory is as much in favour of these
"unperceived" attributes contributing to how we recognise the overall
shape, as it is in rejecting details as unimportant to the whole.

Re: Good design sites?

Amos E Wolfe wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

This is a good principle on paper, but a lousy one online. Studies
generally show that for on-screen legibility a sans serif font is
preferred. Why do you think that most programs come preconfigured to use
sans serif fonts for their menus and dialogue boxes?

Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me -

Re: Good design sites?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Personally I much prefer sans-serif over serif, and I used to claim the
above. But after having been challenged on that view I could find no
supporting evidence of better screen *legibility*, studies into
serif/sans-serif legibility pretty much averaged out at 50/50. Some of
the conducted studies I looked at did show a modest user *preference*
for sans-serif fonts for screen usage.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

But why is it that (all?) visual web browsers are preconfigured to use
serif fonts?

I suspect that this is because of the difference in x-height between
serif and sans-serif fonts (setting a UA's preferred font to sans-serif
results in encountering more micro font situations if no accompanying
counter measures are deployed).


Re: Good design sites? says...
Quoted text here. Click to load it
<snip the rest of the "general rules">

Who's rules?  Yours?

Whitecrest Entertainment

Re: Good design sites?

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:46:09 +0000 (UTC), "Amos E Wolfe"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not using more than three _typefaces_  is a good rule.  You can have a
lot more fonts than this

(a typeface in different sizes, or italicised, is a different font)

Smert' spamionam

Re: Good design sites? says...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Do you want site design, or do you want Site development.  The two
are totally different, and usually mutually exclusive for one person.
Whitecrest Entertainment

Site Timeline