Letting font face and background color default

[tedster]

I think I see a growing trend of letting the font (not the size but the font itself) default to the user preference instead of declaring it -- at least on information sites, newspapers, etc. Most people wouldn't notice this but I have my default font set to Copperplate. That way when I'm testing a page it jumps out at me if there's a spot where I missed having a rule for the font.

Last year there were a lot more undeclared background colors -- especially on major portals, and I spotted that the same way: my default background is a pale blue so I can spot when I've messed it up. If you hope to float graphics that have irregular edges, then handling the color is a must so I can see why it's being controlled more and more.

But are there real advantages to letting the choice of font face go to the user preference? Do most people even touch that setting?

[Nick_W]

But are there real advantages to letting the choice of font face go to the user preference? Do most people even touch that setting?

My instinct says NO. Absolutely not.

Unfortunately, like 'do users change default font sizes?' it's educated guesswork at best.

Could this be attributed to somthing else?

Nick

[tedster]

A couple ideas come to mind -- one is a savings in bandwidth (I am seeing this on very high traffic sites). Another might have something to do with more use of XML feeds, and just not bothering to style it when it's put in a web page.

It's just a curiosity for me, because I doubt many of my clients would appreciate using the default font on their web pages - it's usually TNR and most people want sans-serif anyway.

[Purple Martin]

Think about the most common default:

1. Most users have Internet Explorer.
2. The default for Internet Explorer is Times New Roman.
3. Times New Roman is designed for print not screen.
4. Therefore, most users have an inappropriate font by default.

In my mind, this is a good reason to always set a website's font. Set it to Georgia if you want Serif, or Verdana if you want Sans-Serif (don't use Arial for websites, it's another print font).

[tedster]

Trebuchet is another widespread screen font on Windows - if you don't want those extra wide letter-forms that Verdana uses. It was created at the same time as Verdana and has about the same market penetration.

I sometimes mix up Arial for H tags (so I don't get super wide headlines) and Verdana for body text, which is very easy on the eye. At a large and bold font size, Arial's print-related problems are not very much in evidence.

[orlady]

What are the problems with using Arial on a website? This is something I had not heard of before.

Can someone point me to a website that explains this?

================

(Regarding the basic question asked in this thread, I figure that a webmaster who fails to set font and background colors is just lazy.)

[choster]

Some versions of Arial on the Macintosh are illegible at reduced sizes, for instance that one might use for footnotes (~8 or 9pt). The Linux versions were even worse. The accessibility police prefer Verdana or Trebuchet because they are wider and more open, and thus more legible at smaller sizes at screen resolution.

But I think most of the hostility to Arial has to do with Microsoft rubbing against artistic sensibilities. The typography snob's view:
www.ms-studio.com/articles.html

[orlady]

Thanks for the mini-education, choster.

I suppose it's mostly a matter of taste. I actually prefer Arial to most other computer-generated sans-serif fonts.

Trebuchet isn't bad, but I dislike the way it renders the "g" (lower-case G).

Verdana is one that I dislike. I'm not fond of fat letters. Also, in Verdana the tips of the lower extensions of letters (such as the bottom of the lower-case g) often are partially cut off on my video display (in PC applications, not on webpages such as this one, which uses Verdana).

On the other hand, if a font on a web page is too small to be legible, I can just increase the "zoom".

[shrug]