W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2003

Re: Best font family for accessibility? / site check request

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 11:11:20 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200309091011.h89ABKM06549@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

> The consensus points to 'open' fonts (sans serif ones) as are your examples.

That's why Microsoft commissioned fonts like Verdana, which are specifically
designed to be read on low resolution raster devices.  However, for high
resolution devices, like normal text in printed books, serif fonts are
easier to read and sans-serif fonts are normally used for headlines
(and other material that must stand out but doesn't have to be read easily,
like advertising copy! - Printed adverts are normally sans-serif for reasons
other than readability!)  One should probably use different fonts in the
print style sheet from those in the screen one.

One should always specify fallbacks for vendor fonts.

One should also strongly consider whether one should be specififying a font
at all, as the user will get the most consistent fonts, and if educated, the
best for them, if their choices are respected.
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2003 14:01:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:10 GMT