In internet girano sempre i soliti font. I siti web sono generalmente in Arial, Time New Roman, Georgia, Helvetica o Verdana.
Personalmente trovo il Tahoma elegante, e molto leggibile ma a Sara, la nostra grafica, non piace…
Ross Johnson ha indagato una serie di alternative all’uso dei soliti FONTS. Ecco i suoi consigli.
..there are quite a few high quality typefaces that are available on most new computer systems and you can always fall back on the common ones. Of course there are options like creating images, dynamic headlines, and siFR… but all of these techniques increase load time and development time. There are plenty of good reasons to be strategic in the font choices rather than using additional technology. I am shocked at how rarely I see anyone taking advantage of these type options, so here is a quick and dirty list of fonts you should and could use in your designs and stylesheets.
In sintesi…
Puoi ottenere ottimi effetti risparmiando sui tempi di sviluppo e non ostacolando l’accessibilità, utilizzando i seguenti font.
Nella tabella qui sotto trovi il NOME e l’aspetto del FONT, e la presenza sui computers Windows e Mac espressa in percentuale.
Palatino Linotype / Palatino |
WINDOWS 97.09% / MAC 78.86% |
Tahoma |
WINDOWS 96.09% / MAC 72.02% |
Impact |
WINDOWS 95.85% / MAC 88.08% |
Century Gothic |
WINDOWS 85.44% / MAC 42.50% |
Arial Black |
WINDOWS 97.73% / MAC 96.18% |
Arial Narrow |
WINDOWS 87.08% / MAC 91.01% |
Copperplate / Copperplate Gothic Light |
WINDOWS 58.13% / MAC 85.85% |
Gill Sans / Gill Sans MT |
WINDOWS 43.09% / MAC 90.82% |
