To Arial or not to Arial
February 4, 2006Just a quick follow up:
I must admit, I was quite a bit unprecise saying Arial is the only font for this 2.0Culture design. I was quite wrong with it, to be honest. I appreciate all the comments on that and I fully agree with them. But I think we can say, you should prefer using non-Serif fonts over Times-New-Roman styles. Flames welcome again, but I am (sorry) still a Windows person and therefore had Arial in mind at first. But you are obviously right. Helvetica and suchlike do their job just as well or even better.
More on how YOU can benefit from the 2.0Culture later on this day, here, at Naked IT. Be sure to subscribe to the feed as updates might be irregular.
Thanks for all the comments. I had about 10.000 people dropping by over the night, it’s amazing. From 0 to 10.000 in 8 hours. Not bad for a start.
So be prepared for more. Scroll down for the 2.0Culture design guide that you are now obviously looking for.
This is a scientifically proven fact that serif fonts are more readabe in higher resolution, Non-serif in lower. The longing for increasing of font sizes in 2.0Culture makes me happy!
I’m tending towards lucida these day, eg:
h1 {
font-size: 2.75em;
font-family: “Lucida Sans Unicode”, “Lucida Grande”, “Trebuchet MS”, Verdana, “Bitstream Vera Sans”, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-weight: normal;
}