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
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.