🚀 go-pugleaf

On Oct 26, 10:00 am, Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <fBkUi.5547$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  "rf" <r...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > "Espen Koht" <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:ehk20-118365.11563726102007@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
> > > In article <1193392329.536778.128...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > David Mark <dmark.cins...@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.

Go back and re-read my original statement on the subject.  You
completely missed the point, perhaps due to the fact that you snipped
half of the argument.  If you have further questions about fonts, try
a CSS group.