Best Fonts for Linux Browsers? 60
BladeMelbourne asks: "As a web developer with a healthy love of Linux, I was wondering which fonts look great in Linux web browsers (particularly Mozilla/Netscape). Using 'Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif' just doesn't look nice.
Do different distro's have different fonts? Which fonts resemble Arial/Helvetica? Which fonts are anti-aliased?
Speaking of anti-aliased, does anyone know concisely how to get AA fonts with Mozilla on RedHat 8.0? I have my TTFs working, but don't seem to display correcly and look rather ugly on my display."
Use georgia ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Use georgia ... (Score:2)
Then again, I'm also using OmniWeb on OS X, so your mileage may end up sucking because X11's antialiasing looks like chiseled spam.
XFree 4.2 ships with good looking truetype fonts (Score:2)
They're called Lucidux or Luxi, and they're installed into
Use them. They'll become the standard fonts for Linux web browsers once the rest of the distros get XFree 4.2
Please do just one thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please do just one thing (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Please do just one thing (Score:2)
You have that backwards. Serif fonts are far more readable at small sizes than sans serif fonts.
Re:Please do just one thing (Score:2, Informative)
That is true on paper, but not on computer screens.
Re:Please do just one thing (Score:2)
In other words, if you don't think serif fonts are easier to read, then something's broken in your software.
Re:Please do just one thing (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Please do just one thing (Score:2)
Re:Please do just one thing (Score:2)
Re:Please do just one thing (Score:2)
All
personal preference (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition, I've found that my eyes are accustomed to having fonts with smaller spaces and no hinting, so with Xft1 I compiled with the xft-quality patch from Keith Packard, and for Xft2 I compile with the spacing part applied and then manually set
Re:personal preference (Score:2)
So why's this still an issue? (Score:1, Insightful)
Before anyone says: Quit bitching and do it yourself, I can't. I'm an EE. I know about microcode and circuit design. I have a job. It takes up my time. I refuse to work on work at home; Home is for relaxation.
Oh, and whatever happened to unifying all these various hacks into one standardized way of doing things. How many ways are there to enable anti-aliased fonts? How many ways are there to make the text readable?
END RANT
Re:So why's this still an issue? (Score:2)
They are, but it's a difficult problem and it's taking a lot of time. The situation is significantly better than it was 2 years ago, and hardly recognisable to the mess we had 5 years ago.
Re:So why's this still an issue? (Score:2)
It has been done. The font tool in the KDE Control Center works great for enabling AA and installing new fonts.
Oh, and whatever happened to unifying all these various hacks into one standardized way of doing things. How many ways are there to enable anti-aliased fonts? How many ways are there to make the text readable?
I have no idea how many ways there may be, but unifying them all into one tool is anathema to the OSS developement process. Every single OSS tool has competition, and I think that is vital to the continued health of the community.
Disabling Arial (Score:5, Informative)
Oddly Enough... (Score:5, Informative)
I typically use "Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" or "Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica"
Re:Oddly Enough... (Score:2)
Verdana (Score:2, Insightful)
But then again, when you do your website, it is usually enough to define the font family that you want to be used, rather than the exact font.
Althought my magick line in css is usually
Re:Oddly Enough... (Score:3, Informative)
I hope you don't touch the font-size. Or at least specify it as "100%" or "1em". This is important because otherwise correctly configured browsers display the characters too small.
Way too many websites use styles like p {font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 85%;}. This rule is saying that the author of the page thinks that the page looks best when viewed with font face called "verdana" with a font size of 85% of the size the user has selected she is comfortable with. I'm ok with suggesting a font face but no way normal text should be made smaller than I've set in the preferences. This situation is caused by two reasons:
The above issues, joined with the fact that MSIE is the most common browser and verdana is distributed alongside MSIE practically guarantee that change to the better isn't going to happen unless majority of web "designers" get a clue. I've already lost faith that majority of the users would have some clue [pivx.com] (MSIE with all the latest patches applied: still 11 security holes with publicly available exploits. Scary, eh?).
Fortunately, Mozilla does have minimum font-size setting. Unfortunately, some web sites define such a small font sizes that my minimum of 9px is hit with H1 level headers--so all headers look the same and paragraph text is the same size as all the headers.
Re:Oddly Enough... (Score:1)
Here's my userContent.css from Mozilla:
* { font-size: 16px !important; line-height: normal !important; text-decoration: none !important; }
H1 { font-size: xx-large !important; font-weight: bolder !important; }
H2 { font-size: x-large !important; font-weight: bolder !important; }
H3 { font-size: large !important; font-weight: bolder !important; }
A,A * { text-decoration: underline !important }
SMALL { font-size: smaller; !important }
This helps me a lot: the reason I wrote this is that there are web developers who ask questions like this Ask Slashdot.
Re:Oddly Enough... (Score:2)
With the default settings of every browser I've tried (Opera5/6-mac, IE4.5/5.1-mac, Galeon/Mozilla-linux, Mozilla-mac, Netscape4-mac), font-size: small provides readable fonts..
Not that I terribly condone the practice of making the font smaller than the user's preferences.. I personally think that everyone should have their browser properly configured and let designers make their pages accessible; however, if you must make the font smaller.. font-size: small is the safest and most accessible-friendly way to change it.
YMMV.
Re:Oddly Enough... (Score:2)
Yes, it's fine as long as it isn't used for normal text. Sure, it's still readable, but far from optimal. If you make a page and don't specify font size at all, the font size will be optimal (because I've set up my browser preferences correctly). Why to make things complicated and decrease readability by changing the font size from default? Notice that I'm not saying that one shouldn't use font sizes smaller than default for something like navigation or text based advertisement.
I repeat my point: it's a mistake to compensate for MSIE's default settings even if you feel that that default is "too large". Some people may feel that its default is optimal (there must be some reason for the decided default size) and changing the font size from it makes the text look too small [or large]. In addition to those MSIE users, anybody with correctly configured browser also sees text too small.
This issue is often compared to a Joe Sixpack calling local TV station and asking them to turn the volume down because it's too loud. Do you think the local TV station would do that, or do you think they would tell the user to turn down the volume level in his own TV set? You can be pretty sure that the former would happen in reality. But why are web "designers" thinking they should turn the volume own instead?
Re:Oddly Enough... (Score:1)
But why are web "designers" thinking they should turn the volume own instead?
Because these web designers, which are being disparaged in this thread, understand that 99% of their audience:
Uses some form of IE
Either don't know or don't care to "dig into" their settings to change their fonts from their defaults
So, it's web design for the Lowest Common Denominator.
Re:Oddly Enough... (Score:1)
W3C specs are about accessibility, not looks. If IE has bugs that cause some text to be rendered too large to its users then you should tell those users about that. Ff they mind about the issue, they should try some other browser. Or at least fix their user style sheet. For example we have Opera and Phoenix for Windows, Galeon, Mozilla, Phoenix and Konqueror fox unixes and Mozilla, Chimera, MSIE/mac and Safari [apple.com] for MacOS. All of those can properly display text unlike MSIE/win32.
If you adjust your website text size to look good (in your opinion, some people in fact think bigger text looks better) in MSIE/win32, then less people are going to change to standards compliant browser and we're going to suffer with MSIE/win32 forever. Do you think there would be many users with NN4.x with Javascript and CSS on if authors simply decided to follow the spec only (and causing the NN4.x to crash when float and clear properties were used)? Why do you think we still have that many users using that bad browser?
It's not like you're going to lose customers if your font size is the default 12px instead of 8px (that you think looks good) but the other way around may be true (the text is so small that visitor cannot read it for a reason or another).
In addition, you list one reason as "they don't care" which I consider as a reason not to change the font size from default, not a reason to change it. If they really wanted the text size look smaller they would do something for it, don't you think?
Note that I'm not saying that you should support Mozilla/Opera/Konqueror/Safari and try to make the life of those who use MSIE harder. Instead I suggest that everybody should simply make pages strictly according to the recommendation. If many enough did this, MS didn't had choise but to fix the problems in their browser or lose the market position.
Re:Oddly Enough... (Score:2)
I'm so SICK of hearing people bitch about this. Maybe you morons should use a different browser if your current shitty one doesn't support such rudimentary features. It's not like there's not better (& free) alternatives out there.
"But I'm at work and we don't have mozilla" download the zip file, extract it to your desktop, and run the executable from there. It works fine.
Permissions to run executables (Score:1)
"But I'm at work and we don't have mozilla" download the zip file, extract it to your desktop, and run the executable from there. It works fine.
What about "But I'm at work and the machine says I don't have enough permissions to run executables from my {NT|UNIX} home directory"? Or "But I'm at school and my home directory's quota isn't big enough to hold a Mozilla installation"? A simple polite e-mail worked to get Mozilla installed (alongside Netscape 4.6) on the Rose-Hulman math department's Solaris OE workstations [rose-hulman.edu], but how would a fellow go about negotiating with the IT department if that fails?
Re:Oddly Enough... (Score:1)
I'm so SICK of hearing people bitch about this. Maybe you morons should use a different browser if your current shitty one doesn't support such rudimentary features.
Uh? Perhaps you should reread my post? The word "some" doesn't include me. You might be speaking about yourself in 3rd person but I don't do that. I was bitching about the fact that because MSIE is buggy [pivx.com] and it has many users some web "designers" feel that they must break some rules to make a web page to compensate some of those bugs. Nevermind the fact that those "fixes" break any standards-compiliant browser. I don't use MSIE, I don't support it and I always try to code according to the recommended spec [w3.org]--but there're many others doing something else.
Freetype 2.1 (Score:2)
Use the XFT RPM (Score:4, Informative)
Antialiasing and fonts (Score:2)
For fonts, I say Verdana and Epsy Sans are the two best proportional on-screen text fonts. Unfortunately, neither can be freely distributed.
Re:Antialiasing and fonts (Score:2)
Incorrect, Verdana can be distributed, though only in the form Microsoft originally packaged them in. See this Sourceforge project [sourceforge.net], however, for an easy way to get these fonts installed as an RPM. Or install the Debian msttcorefonts package.
Re:Antialiasing and fonts (Score:2)
Re:Antialiasing and fonts (Score:1)
Re:Antialiasing and fonts (Score:2)
Best Fonts for Linux Browsers (Score:3, Informative)
use standard old fonts (Score:2, Informative)
Mozilla with XFT and GTK theme support (Score:4, Informative)
cd moz1.3
lftp ftp.mozilla.org:/pub/mozilla/releases/mozilla1.3a
mget *
[close mozilla]
rpm -Uvh *
You now have a beautiful browser.
Re:Mozilla with XFT and GTK theme support (Score:3, Informative)
---
RSYNC_RHOST
RSYNC_RDIR
RSYNC
RPM
rsync:
$(RSYNC) -r $(RSYNC_RHOST)::$(RSYNC_RDIR)
RPMS
upgrade:
$(RPM) -U $(RPMS)
---
Use MS core fonts with Mozilla-ttf (Score:3, Informative)
Antialiased Fonts in Mozilla (Score:3, Informative)
I did the following to enable antialiased fonts in Mozilla - I didn't compile my own Mozilla, but I do tend to use recent nightlies:
I had the libfreetype6 Debian package installed.
I made made my own font directory and copied the *.ttf files that I needed to it, because one of my more esoteric fonts would cause Mozilla to crash.
In the end I gave up on anti-aliased fonts because they gave me a headache unless I made them much bigger than I'm used to with my normal "crisp" X11 fonts.
Re:Antialiased Fonts in Mozilla (Score:1)
Arial != Helvetica (Score:2)
Read this [ms-studio.com] and this [ms-studio.com], and don't use Arial again.
While those pages are loading, how can you say you are a webdesigner, when you haven't learnt that web pages are not wysiwyg? I bet your pages look shit.
In any case. Don't specify Arial, or at the very least, specifiy it last. Put "san serif" in the list in front. Arial is an abomination, and should be killed. If you want Helvetica, say so, but don't ever imagine that Arial can take the place of Helvetica.
Re:Arial != Helvetica (Score:1)
You might want to talk with Slashdot authors know about your preferences. Didn't you notice the page you were reading was using Arial?
<FONT FACE="arial,helvetica" SIZE="4" COLOR="#FFFFFF"><B>Best Fonts for Linux Browsers?</B></FONT>
Newspaper version (Score:1)
TEXAS REALLY IS BIGGER
CRAWFORD, TEXAS - Another case has cropped up in this presidential town that has computer owners complaining about the thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours invested in their new GNU/Linux box, only to have Texas' motto "It's bigger down here" still hold true.
The computer owner, Peter Slikowski, says that ever since he moved to Texas, things on his computer have seemed blocky and pixelated. Pixelation is the effect where high-contrast items have jagged lines instead of nice smooth lines. Slikoski said he recently moved from a one-bedroom apartment in New York City to his current 12 acre ranch. His move came about with a promotion at his employer who transfered him to Texas.
"I felt like I was rich with the promotion so I splurged and bought lots of new furniture, a big-screen TV, and a 21-inch monitor for my computer. I didn't have room for any of this in New York."
Slikowski has taken his concerns to the Better Businness Bureau here in Crawford, but they say that his software manufacturer couldn't possibly be from Texas because no one wears red hats down here.
We talked with someone at the Bureau and, as luck happened, we talked with the same clerk Slikowski had and we learned many things. The clerk, who is a high school self-proclaimed geek said that while he could not formally assist the individual, he did offer some free computer advice to assist with the jagged text. It seems that Slikowki used to only have room for a fourteen inch monitor in his one bedroom. When he got his new, 21-inch monitor, he never changed the screen resolution. His previous monitor allowed for a 640x480 screen resolution (about 0.3 Megapixels) whereas his new monitor allows for a 2048x1536 screen resolution (about 3.1 Megapixels).
Using this new resolution would have made each dot on the screen smaller and thereby hiding the jagged lines.
Slikowki scuffed at the young clerk and refused to listen since he felt the clerk had no industry experience. Slikowski is currently taking the issue up with a trendy electronic newsletter called Slashdot to see if any in their community can address the issue.
GNU/Linux is a free operating system for computers and is sold exclusively at Wal-Mart under the Lindows name.
--
Well, everything seems about right except for that last paragraph. I guess every newspaper article has to get at least one glaring fact wrong.
P.S. This article is fake. Laugh.
This is the users responsibility (Score:2, Troll)
They have to setup nice TTFs and AA fonts. This responsibility has been dumped onto the users by the distros who couldnt care what text looks like.
So web developers shouldnt bend and break to be Linux compatible, Linux has been far more standards based than other OSes, and should too in font display. Web developers already are trying to be flexible to allow IE weirdocities, lets not let Linux do the same to them.
The best is (Score:1, Funny)
Verdana,Arial,Helvetica size=-1 (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, do yourself a favor and use CSS. I use this, which also displays text at the right size on Macs (which like to make fonts smaller when browsing the web):
P { font: 11px Verdana,Arial,Helvetica }
I can't say much for what the "right way" to do this is without offending those folks who believe the web should not have any markup for design.
Re:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica size=-1 (Score:2)
I agree with the earlier poster: Arial should be last after "sans serif"; it is the ugliest font in common usage today. At home I have Opera set to use Gill Sans (anti-aliased under X) for the base font but obviously I don't expect many people to have that setup for reading webpages.
TWW
Better fonts in X the easy way (Score:2)
Folks love to comment how ugly they think GUIs look under X in Netscape/Mozilla, and the same folks often suggest the solution is to use anti-aliased fonts. Sure, anti-aliased fonts are good.
However, I'd like to share my experience with a very simple alternative method of getting really great looking fonts in X without installing or changing any software.