🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <fBkUi.5547$CN4.684@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
 "rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote:

> 
> "Espen Koht" <ehk20@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message 
> news:ehk20-118365.11563726102007@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
> > In article <1193392329.536778.128210@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Verdana is not appropriate for a Web page.  12px Verdana is even less
> >> appropriate.  Verdana is a relatively large font, which may or may not
> >> be legible at 12px.
> >
> > Care to make this argument more coherent? Verdana is designed for
> > legibility on computer screens and by all accounts achieves this, even
> > at small sizes.
> 
> Google will help you here. Search newsgroups. 

All that google appears to bring up are pages like this: 
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html> which are 
similarly incoherent and manages to summarising the argument for "Why 
you should avoid the Verdana font" as "web-authors are recommended to 
avoid using Verdana, at least for the main text of the page". How 
enlightening, but how about some reasoning before you draw your 
conclusion? That said, at least it doesn't make the original claim that 
Verdana may not be legible at these sizes, which simply isn't correct.