The first two fonts don't come with Windows, so if it's using one of them and looks bad then you have a shitty version of it installed. Not his fault.
The next font is Georgia. If Georgia looks bad then you just must not like Windows' font rendering. I don't blame you for that, but it's also not Zed's fault.
On a side note, I wonder if Microsoft finally fixed the idiotic "you can have normal antialiasing or sub-pixel antialiasing but by God you cannot have both" behavior in Windows 7? Anyone know?
Or you might just be talking about the tag line that's using some @font-face font that looks like ass. It looks just as bad on a Mac, so that's not the cause -- it's just an ugly font.
Zed used a cascade of Adobe Caslon, Hoefler, Georgia, Garamond and Times for the body. Good fonts, all of them. Whose fault is it that all except Times render poorly?*
"The crazy colors should tell you that this is only for the brave."
Maybe the same goes for the fonts.
* I checked Firefox, Chrome and IE on an XP3 system. With Chrome's Developer Tools, I removed fonts from the front of the cascade until the type looked "right", and arrived at Times. Bah.
Why is there no need for the snark? Do you think there is never a need for snide remarks? Choosing to use fonts that don't render well as your body font deserves contempt! It is bad for the people reading the site, and it's bad for the site owner.
It's neat and all that it's finally possible to use more fonts in webpages, but this is one trend that should be avoided until someone (Microsoft or the browser makers) figures out how to do the text rendering correctly.
Comments
You can tell a website was designed on a Mac when its fonts are nearly unreadable in Windows browsers other than Safari.
As jaskerr said, the font stack looks like this:
The first two fonts don't come with Windows, so if it's using one of them and looks bad then you have a shitty version of it installed. Not his fault.The next font is Georgia. If Georgia looks bad then you just must not like Windows' font rendering. I don't blame you for that, but it's also not Zed's fault.
On a side note, I wonder if Microsoft finally fixed the idiotic "you can have normal antialiasing or sub-pixel antialiasing but by God you cannot have both" behavior in Windows 7? Anyone know?
Or you might just be talking about the tag line that's using some @font-face font that looks like ass. It looks just as bad on a Mac, so that's not the cause -- it's just an ugly font.
Designed on Linux actually, and looks fabulous!
No need for the snark.
Zed used a cascade of Adobe Caslon, Hoefler, Georgia, Garamond and Times for the body. Good fonts, all of them. Whose fault is it that all except Times render poorly?*
"The crazy colors should tell you that this is only for the brave."
Maybe the same goes for the fonts.
* I checked Firefox, Chrome and IE on an XP3 system. With Chrome's Developer Tools, I removed fonts from the front of the cascade until the type looked "right", and arrived at Times. Bah.
Why is there no need for the snark? Do you think there is never a need for snide remarks? Choosing to use fonts that don't render well as your body font deserves contempt! It is bad for the people reading the site, and it's bad for the site owner.
It's neat and all that it's finally possible to use more fonts in webpages, but this is one trend that should be avoided until someone (Microsoft or the browser makers) figures out how to do the text rendering correctly.