Re: [boost] Strange font settings on www.boost.org

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-02 09:12:20

on Tue Apr 01 2008, "Michael Fawcett" <michael.fawcett-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>  The standard specifies that the font-family is a preference list. Hence
>>  the first font found is used. In the above the "Times New Roman" is a
>>  Windows font. On other platforms it should select whatever your
>>  preferred "serif" font is. The font choice is intentional in that first
>>  the times-new-roman is the best displaying built-in serif font on
>>  Windows, hence it will show nicely on peoples screens. Second serif is
>>  used in the heading since they are easier to read, and the larger size
>>  makes them possible, without going overboard with bold or other
>>  enhancements.
>
> Honestly the serif fonts are hard to read at smaller resolutions and
> IMHO visually unappealing at any resolution, except when printed.  A
> quick Google search shows that web style guides pretty uniformly
> recommend:
>
> Web pages:
> sans-serif font for headlines
> sans-serif or serif font for body text
>
> Web pages meant to be printed (e.g. recipes):
> sans-serif font for headlines
> serif font for body text

I agree with you about serif fonts on webpages (and I have other
misgivings about the current web style), but I'm pretty sure that's a
battle that has been fought and lost already.  There was extensive
wrangling before the web style was chosen.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://boost-consulting.com