[sllug-members]: Developing websites for *today's* masses

[Jason Edwards]

I don't think anyone would disagree that large bodies of text in
decorative fonts is hard to read.  But I don't think this is what Chad
is talking about.  I believe (hope) he's using them for emphasis.

Now, yes you can create an image with the desired font, and that's
fine for something that doesn't change very often.  But what if you
wanted to use a decorative font for the headings of posts in your
blog?  Isn't that a really good time to use a decorative font?  And
does it seem reasonable to create an image for every post?  Of course
not.

I think the Internet would be a more interesting, if not beautiful,
place if designers had more freedom with fonts.*

Jason

* Please note: I am not a designer; I can't make things pretty.  I am
just a consumer of beautiful web design.

On Dec 14, 2007 8:28 PM, Michael Heath <mike.thomas.heath at gmail.com> wrote:
> Official Font Familes are as listed on that Wikipedia page. Different
> browsers, otherwise, handle them differently. I've given you some safe and
> traditional values.
>
> Why do you want to use these fonts? Weird, elaborate, or decorative fonts
> are annoying inline with the body of your text, and can be replaced with
> images for logos. The Font-Families are simple and haven't been expanded
> much for a reason: there isn't a need. Simple, clean fonts are sufficient
> and should be used whenever possible.
>
> Mike Heath
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 14, 2007 4:49 PM, Chad <masterclc at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the info!  I guess I didn't completely realize that.  If I
> > want to use, for example, Adobe Jenson Pro, or Juice ITC (appears in
> > both my Windows and Gentoo fonts list) I have to specify the exact
> > font by name right?  Some fonts don't have a "family" or am I missing
> > that part?  If I can specify other families, is there a list of what
> > fonts belong to those families?  I see the Wikipedia entry:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font_family_(HTML)  But it seems somewhat
> > incomplete; but it is definitely a lot larger of a list than most of
> > the articles I've read seem to allude to existing.
> >
> > Thanks again,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Chad
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > See http://www.sllug.org/ for latest SLLUG news, information, links.
> > Join SLLUG and other UT LUG members on irc.FreeNode.net channel #Utah
> > sllug-members at sllug.org
> > http://www.sllug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sllug-members
> >
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> See http://www.sllug.org/ for latest SLLUG news, information, links.
> Join SLLUG and other UT LUG members on irc.FreeNode.net channel #Utah
> sllug-members at sllug.org
> http://www.sllug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sllug-members
>
>