Fonts etc.... Has the new look been finalised?

When the Photo.net redesign was first unleashed some days ago there was a small outcry about the use of

a sans serif font (Helvetica?) for forum content, and shortly afterward the font was replaced with a serif

font (Georgia?)

 

Am I alone in finding Georgia (and indeed most serif fonts) unsuitable for displaying forum content?

 

Certainly most of the forums I visit use sans serif fonts (with Verdana being the most common, I think).

 

Georgia seems unnecessarily busy, and gives me a headache.

 

It's not that I wish for the layout that appeared briefly and was then replaced - it was using the wrong

sans serif font, and the line-spacing was exaggerated.

 

But it would be nice if the viewer could have an option of choosing between a good looking serif and sans

serif layout.

 

It would also be nice if the fonts could be set a size bigger.

 

And why does the date and time of a posting need to be set in bold? The information is of little interest to

most users.

 

(OSX, Safari, 20" Cinema Display)

<p>I don't like Georgia, either, as it appears on this site (in larger sizes or when printed, it's not as bad); the previous serif font had a much cleaner look to it. But there were a number of complaints that it was hard for some people to read. To prove that you can't please everyone, once the switch to Georgia was made, there were people who complained that it wasn't very readable. Oddly enough, if you view the site on a platform that doesn't have Georgia, you get sans serif, because the style sheet specifies Georgia, Arial, sans-serif (in that order) as the fonts to use.</p>

 

<p>I also don't like the exaggerated line spacing. It's still exaggerated, though I don't know if it's less so than it was with the previous font; Georgia does weird things (see the line below where I give my screen resolution, and one character sticks up above the others while another character sticks down below the others) and I don't know if that affects the line spacing.</p>

 

<p>I'm happy with the font size.</p>

 

<p>P.S. there will be people who respond that you can use various options in most browsers to adjust fonts and sizes. Yes, you can. The point is that those are global changes, and you shouldn't have to make adjustments which affect every site you visit just to de-uglify one site.</p>

 

<p>(currently posting from XP, 17" LCD at 1280x1024, Mozilla Seamonkey 1.1.1)</p>

different strokes I guess. I like the serif much better than the sans-serif that was here

briefly. I like the date, mainly because 'new answers' isn't terribly reliable for me, so I can

quickly skip over stuff I've read before.

 

For fonts being bigger, as a work around, you can command-shift-equals and make them

larger. You can also tweak the universal access to make a minimum size that's large

enough to read.

 

(OSX, Safari, Laptop)

Personally (this is my non-photo.net staff hat here), I like the look of the serif fonts.

 

However, (puts on photo.net staff hat) while I can't say with 100% certainty that these fonts are the final decision. As far as I know, the designers are pretty happy with them.

 

P.S. Good for you guys thinking to put what OS, browser, and screen you are viewing on. It is a lot easier for us to troubleshoot stuff when we know what the users are viewing the site with.

 

(OSX, Firefox 2, Laptop)

The Online Photographer - http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/ - uses Georgia,

and somehow I don't mind it so much there.

 

Maybe it's the nature of the content (articles as opposed to forum posts). Also the

graphic design (the papery texture of the background, the earthy colours etc.) By adopting

an old-fashioned, papery look, it kind of justifies the old rule about laying out large blocks

of text in serif fonts.

 

Photo.net with it's grey colour scheme, and its little grids and boxes, seems to be going

for a more modern look. And Georgia clashes with that look.

 

Anyway, your site statistics over the coming weeks will tell you whether the redesign has

been a success.

 

To my eyes, the redesign has made the forums rather opaque.

I have been confused by all this discussion because I was seeing san-serif text on everything.

It turns out I didn't have the Georgia font turned on. So I turned it on...and then quickly back

off. I remember the thread where somebody was complaining about san-serif types being

harder to read, but I'm not sure that is as true for reading on a screen as it is in print. Serifs,

especially on small type tend to get lost in the anti-aliasing when displayed on monitors. The

old wisdom does not translate perfectly to the digital realm. After comparing them side by

side, I can say confidently that I much prefer the san-serif, but this is not to say that georgia

is bad. This is on OS X with safari.

Another reason the Georgia works better on The Online Photographer - http://

theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/ - than on the Photo.net forums, is that The Online

Photographer uses a fixed width layout, so you only ever get between 10 and 15 words per

line. With Safari more or less maximised on my 20 inch screen I'm getting at least 30 words

per line - too many for comfortable reading!

I don't know about other browsers, but Mozilla Firefox permits the user to choose what font is preferred. I prefer serif fonts but consider it a matter of personal choice. Look in the 'OPTIONS" menu and you might be surprised at the ways you can tailor your display! . . .Chacun a son gout!