Welcome to TalkGraphics.com
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11

    Default Re: Typography on the web, what's good what's not?

    I would argue that to Google, that within reason it is indiscriminate about the speed of page loads. Page loads do matter to ranking somewhat, but readable content will always trump page load speed. That is not to say pages that load slow due to construction techniques are not penalized, they are. But within G's speed consideration metrics, a page isn't unduly penalized because a site with generally similar content loads faster.

    I suspect that Google doesn't penalize sites using font-face. Simply because as you say, they are encouraging its use, so I doubt the overhead matters to Google. (Again, within reason.)

    @font-face is a good technology. If for no other reason that once it becomes more wide-spread all those sites out there are ripe for make-overs. Which is good for those who do such work. And from my perspective, using font-face does enhance a site. Like with print, I have seen some people go wild because they can. Which is no different than early DTP.

    Take care, Mike

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Liverpool, NY
    Posts
    1,031

    Default Re: Typography on the web, what's good what's not?

    Hi GaryP,

    Type that is as long as the width of this text box but the same size is harder to read at this wide a measure as this text is at this size.
    I'm not getting what you are talking about here. Text boxes on TG are not a set size, they are fluid and are about 85% of the width of your browser window.

    Are you talking about the typographic principles and rules of thumb that related to font size and line length?

    The default body text size (the size a browser will use for paragraph text unless told otherwise) for browsers is 16px. The recommended line length for optimal readability is usually given as being somewhere between 45 and 72 characters, with font size, font choice, contrast between the type and the background and the line spacing or leading being major factors that affect readability.

    "With text rendering at 12 px this would result in a measure of approximately 66 characters per line. If your reader increases the text size to 16 px then the measure reduces to 50 characters per line. Thus when the text size is changed, so the measure changes. Source: The Elements of Typographic Style Applied to the Web"

    However recent studies of reading speed and comprehension when reading online news articles recommend 95 characters per line.

    So I think that it basically comes back to the designer to specify fonts, line spacing and line lengths that best suit the content, the audience and the overall look or color of the online page, just as it does for print.

    Personally, for large block of single column of body text on a page , I prefer higher contrast text (don't like type set at #444 or lighter as is trendy now) at 14 to 16px and leading or line spacing set to around 1.3 to 1.5em and line lengths of between 75 and 90. It is easier on my bi-focalish eyes and as the population as a whole ages large sized, high contrast body copy becomes more and more appreciated.
    Last edited by Barbara B; 19 March 2012 at 08:38 PM. Reason: typo
    Barbara Bouton
    TalkGraphics Forum Administrator

    The Xara Xone website developer. | TheBoutons.com

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Liverpool, NY
    Posts
    1,031

    Default Re: Typography on the web, what's good what's not?

    As far as using @fontface to load fonts for a web page, I believe it is a very useful tool in a designers toolbox. And as with all tools, it can be used with skill and precision, or ham-handedly to poor and amateurish effect.

    Literally millions of sites small (The Xara Xone which serves them locally) and large (The Boston Globe which is served by a CDN) use fontface for headlines and other special text without any performance problems.

    These stunning and often award-winning sites
    wield the fontface tool creatively and effectively. And clean, award winning sites like MENDO or Boozy Cake Company even use fontface for body copy without ill effect.

    If a concern about font face performance issues are holding you back, it's really no more of a concern today than loading large graphics, video, Flash, widgets or iframes (Facebook-like buttons, analytics, or adservers for example, can be horrible drags on page loads) page load is affected—and we all use them from time to time.
    Last edited by Barbara B; 19 March 2012 at 09:21 PM.
    Barbara Bouton
    TalkGraphics Forum Administrator

    The Xara Xone website developer. | TheBoutons.com

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Sunshine Coast BC, Canada. In a beautiful part of BC's temperate rainforest
    Posts
    7,749

    Default Re: Typography on the web, what's good what's not?

    With the new web designer programs now having the ability to embed fonts, this topic now becomes quite current.

    So how many fonts is too many?(assuming here that one is not doing a fonts site as that is a different critter) I think that 3 maybe 4 tops on a site is plenty and I don't think I would use more than 3 very often.

    What fonts pair well together?
    My current Xara software: XDPX9, WD9 Premium

    Good Morning Sunshine.ca | Good Morning Sunshine Online(a weekly humorous publication created with XDP and exported as a web document) | SunWings.info, Xara resource shop |
    My Video Tutorials | My DropBox | Tutoring

    Autocorrect: It can be your worst enema.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Liverpool, N.Y.
    Posts
    3,408

    Default Re: Typography on the web, what's good what's not?

    Web or not web, consider these pairs when laying out an article:

    Helvetica for headlines, Times New Roamn for body copy. I've also seen this reversed to good effect.

    Futura for headlines, Garamond for body copy.

    Lemme think some more of effective pairs of typefaces.

    -g-

  6. #16

    Default Re: Typography on the web, what's good what's not?

    Quote Originally Posted by angelize View Post
    ...
    So how many fonts is too many?(assuming here that one is not doing a fonts site as that is a different critter) I think that 3 maybe 4 tops on a site is plenty and I don't think I would use more than 3 very often.

    What fonts pair well together?
    Two questions. First Q, I don't think it is much (if at all) different than print as regards how many fonts to use. I can see using 3–4 depending upon the web site.

    Second Q. Fonts should convey meaning and I think especially with a web site, structure that fits the design aesthetic. If I design something for print, I think I can get away with being a little more adventurous because someone reading a printed piece is a more or less captive audience. At least more so than the web.

    With a web site, there is precious little time to convey the site and its contents to new visitors (returning viewers have made a commitment, so I am disregarding them here). So for me, I need to be clear about the site and its information straight away. Still, it depends on the site and its contents as to what fonts I would pair together. For a business, I would tend to be most conventional (sans serifs for body headings, either serif or sans serif for main title heads, and likely a good readable sans serif for the body).

    But that is perhaps just me. Even with print design, I tend towards conventional, conservative lay out and do so with web sites as well.

    Take care, Mike

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Liverpool, N.Y.
    Posts
    3,408

    Default Re: Typography on the web, what's good what's not?

    There's an old saying in advertising, "When you got nothing to say, you sing it."

    Same is true in print. If what you offer as written content is meager, you can attract attention by dressing up your text in fancy fonts.

    This is no excuse for not writing content, but it's just a fire alarm, you pull it when you need to.

    On the other hand, a message-intensive tome on a web page demands structure, but not the trendy, glossy treatment you'd graphically inflict on something more appropriate in a fashion magazine.

    Taste, restraint, sensibilities, and relying on your previous experiences as a design should help point your course.

    There is no ideal number of typefaces to use on a website.

    The same as there is no social yardstick for excessive use of color, theme, or graphic style on a website.

    The message HAS to dictate the execution of the site.

    -g-

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    9

    Default Re: Typography on the web, what's good what's not?

    Different things for different people, honestly. At the very least, though, things must be easy to read and must be exciting to the eyes.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    9

    Default Re: Typography on the web, what's good what's not?

    I always stick to what I've stumbled upon one day, to keep typography invisible. A good typography is invisible typography.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Liverpool, N.Y.
    Posts
    3,408

    Default Re: Typography on the web, what's good what's not?

    Um, your June post, longlivemedia, says that "things", I assume you mean text, must be exciting to the eyes.

    And then yesterday you state that typography should be "invisible".

    How is something that's invisible be exciting to the eye?

    Please elaborate?

    Thanks!

    Gary

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •