W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2008

RE: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise proposal

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:22:16 -0800
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6D096C8718FA4241B934489A5E1CE1420118E2DE65E1@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>

I wrote:

>  > 95% of users and developers *can* tell the difference between those
>  > fonts and well-made fonts when it comes to body text on screen

Håkon Lie replied:

> I often hear this, and it may be true today. However, there are two
> reasons why it's not that important. First, web designers are
> primarily looking to use web fonts for display type. Look at CSS Zen
> Garden [1]. There, designers happily use the core fonts [2] for body
> text....

I'm sorry, I don't take that tiny handful of designs as evidence of the general wishes of web designers.

I will certainly concede that I didn't ask about this specific issue in my big survey, so I don't have any strong evidence the other way, either. My belief is that display type is the bigger need of the two, but that both are quite important.

> Second, the higher-density screens common in emerging computers makes
> hinting and other expensive tricks less important.

Higher-density screens make hinting less critical, but I wasn't talking about hinting, I was talking about needing well-made fonts for body text on screen. As it happens, you need well-made fonts for body text pretty much regardless of resolution.


Received on Friday, 14 November 2008 20:23:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:41 UTC