I can see some of the fonts. And when I change fnts in CSS they do change in design view. It could just be that that design view displays the font differently than it looks on the page. In any case it is not worth losing sleep over. However I am glad I asked because Jon's suggestion to validate my site found a major problem that I fixed. ... View more

Yes High Sierra, they are in ~ user/library/font. "Alberta Extra Light", "Latin Modern Times10", "Albertus Medium". I am using them as web fonts. Later today I will try changing the fonts in the css and see if that has any effect on how they display in design view. But I am not going to spend a lot of time chasing this one. As long as it works where it is supposed to - in the browser - I will tolerate that they look different in the design pane. ... View more

I can see all the fonts in "Available fonts" in the "font family" dialog. So DW has access to them. But for some reason is not displaying them. (scratches head) ... View more

No I am using in house fonts that work in MS Word. And as I said they used to be seen in design view on my 2011 MBP with Mavericks. ... View more

Thanks Nancy I took a look in all three Font folders and there are a gazzilion fonts most of which I don't need and that I didn't install. Will have to see about removing most of them using "monolingual.". But in the "user" font folder are all the fonts I installed. They work in MS Word and Scrivener but not DW )-: ... View more

I thought the same thing and made sure to install the 3 fonts required on my system, plus missing fonts that affected other documents. I then rebooted just make sure. Problem solved in MS Word, and Srivener but not DW. )-: ... View more

All I got was a bunch of warnings that "The type attribute is unnecessary for JavaScript resources." Showing results for https://shyamasundaradasa.com/ - Nu Html Checker I will remove them from the template. Then see if it helps. But somehow I doubt it. At least I wont get the warnings (-: ... View more

I guess I must have Flash turned on, as it just worked for me using FF. But you are right, though the navigation is sort of cute for "mystery meat" style navigation. Why are they relying on it? Good question, maybe they don't want anyone to find them. But it is strange for this kind of supposedly cutting edge company to use something that should be found on the shelves of the Smithsonian. ... View more

I'm in my mid-60s. I ruined my eyes looking at screens trying to tweak PhotoShop images and now wear glasses. So I count as visually impaired. Even with glasses, I increase font size but that is all. Even though I dislike sans-serif I do not mess with the fonts because it would be too much trouble and I want to experience the site the way the designer intended it. And I remind those who insist it is otherwise that current usability studies do not support the claims favoring sans-serif. They just don't. Thus, there's no strong usability guideline in favor of using one or the other, so you can make the choice based on other considerations — such as branding or the mood communicated by a particular typographical style." Jakob Nielsen - Serif vs. Sans-Serif Fonts for HD Screens And: "What initially seemed a neat dichotomous question of serif versus sans serif has resulted in a body of research consisting of weak claims and counter-claims, and study after study with findings of “no difference”. ... "Finally, we should accept that most reasonably designed typefaces in mainstream use will be equally legible and that it makes much more sense to argue in favor of serif or sans serif typefaces on aesthetic grounds than on the question of legibility."  Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces? Here is another article: Serif vs. Sans Serif Fonts: Is One Really Better Than the Other?  It debunks the myths that serif is for print and sans serif for digital. And many high traffic sites use serif fonts. Are they losing traffic because of visually impaired readers? Serif train: New York Times, The Guardian, Huffington Post, The Daily Beast, Reuters, NPR, New York Post, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, TIME, Bloomberg Businessweek, Newsweek, Forbes, Washington Post, Politico, LA Times, The Boston Globe, Wired Sans serif boat: BBC, NBC, Vox, Medium, Buzzfeed, Fox, ABC, CNN, Mashable, Us Weekly, The Onion, People, USA Today, Telegraph, NY Daily News, Fast Company The Wall Street Journal is in the business of making money, most of the content is behind a paywall and their demographic is a much older. More than three-fourths of them have a college degree, and their average household income is $234,909. The readers of USA Today and The New York Times tend to earn less. The Journal has a strong grasp on a group of readers who have the disposable income to spend on big-ticket items. A full-page color ad in the paper costs $168,500 to $234,000. What Do the Rich and Powerful Read? - ABC News Yet the WSJ uses a serif font, go see for yourself The Wall Street Journal & Breaking News, Business, Financial and Economic News, World News and Video  It is a matter of taste and your sense of aesthetics. If you want to use sans-serif fonts on your site, and if you want to convert via CSS all sites on your browser to sans-serif then, by all means do so. But, to claim that studies show that sans-serif are better is simply not true. ... View more

"Nancy is correct, and @font-face can also be blocked by a user, so you cannot control the font used. All browsers have a user css style sheet, that they can use to 'block' the use of any font, and change it to a user defined font. This also applies to any css selector." I agree. But how many people actually know that, and of those who do, how many actually do that? I wager that it is a minuscule number of users. ... View more

Szlam said "Interestingly, I find the standard (sans-serif) typeface on these forums to be easier to read than the serif one that VL Branko is using." I quoted several usability studies that found no discernable advantage to either serif or san serif when it came to ease of reading and legibility. You may be simply just used to seeing san serif because most of the sites that you frequent use them and that is what you expect on the web. Or it is just a matter of your taste and preference. And for me, it is the opposite. I detest sans-serif fonts for body text and relegate them to titles and headings, in fact for those jobs I prefer flared fonts. It is a matter of taste not usability. And, in a text on March 16 I listed a number of major sites that use serif fonts. It is clear that the digital world is not a sans-serif world. I very rarely read paper books now and digitized my whole library to PDFs. ... View more

When I first began studying how to design websites I got the book Web Pages That Suck - Learn Good Design by Looking at Bad Web Design. They also have a website that collects many examples of, you guessed it, web pages that suck. www.webpagesthatsuck.com Have fun. ... View more

I am in same boat, I do not visit as often as I used to. But each time I do it has be redone and looks completely different. ... View more

Thanks, Nancy. These "Google Font Effects" could be interesting is used aesthetically or could just be a headache if abused. ... View more

Nancy O wrote: "That statement is rooted in past century print conventions; not the modern digital age.  While serif might work well in print,  usability studies show that sans-serif fonts are much cleaner & easier to read on screen.  If you use an Android device, I'm guessing that your web experience is all in Droid Sans." When I hear someone say "studies have shown" in my mind (and sometimes popping out of my mouth) comes the question: "whose studies?" "Not the modern digital age," as you are fond of saying, things move fast in web design and that we need to keep up so that also applies to typography. The modern digital age refers to -- after HD screens. Jakob Nielsen had this to say with the advent of HD screens (emphasis in red added): "The old usability guideline for online typography was simple: stick to sans-serif typefaces. Because computer screens were too lousy to render serifs properly, attempting serif type at body-text sizes resulted in blurry letter shapes. ... The old guideline was dictated by the poor screens on all mainstream computers. Now that we have high-quality screens, it's time to change the guideline. In general, usability guidelines remain unchanged decade after decade because they're determined by human characteristics. However, every so often, some guidelines change due to the influence of technology or a change in user habits. For example, 10% of the original web usability guidelines from the 1990s have now changed because of technology improvements. Count this article as changing one more of those old guidelines. Unfortunately, the new guideline is not as clear-cut as the old one. Legibility research is inconclusive as to whether serif fonts are truly better than sans serif. Almost all mainstream printed newspapers, magazines, and books use serif type, and thus people are more accustomed to reading long texts in this style. However, given the research data, the difference in reading speed between serif and sans serif is apparently quite small. Thus, there's no strong usability guideline in favor of using one or the other, so you can make the choice based on other considerations — such as branding or the mood communicated by a particular typographical style." Jakob Nielsen - Serif vs. Sans-Serif Fonts for HD Screens Here is a scholarly article (in serif font ) by another usability consultant Alex Poole : Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces? From the conclusion: "What initially seemed a neat dichotomous question of serif versus sans serif has resulted in a body of research consisting of weak claims and counter-claims, and study after study with findings of “no difference”. ... "Finally, we should accept that most reasonably designed typefaces in mainstream use will be equally legible, and that it makes much more sense to argue in favour of serif or sans serif typefaces on aesthetic grounds than on the question of legibility." Here is another article: Serif vs. Sans Serif Fonts: Is One Really Better Than the Other? It debunks the myths that serif is for print and sans serif for digital. One user at https://www.reddit.com/r/userexperience/comments/2tvm2i/is_serif_more_readable_than_sans_serif_on_mobile/  made the following comment containing a list of major sites (as of 2015) using both font types: I don't think there's a big difference, but just to see I did a little experiment. Here are major websites who publish lots of articles. Serif train: New York Times, The Guardian, Huffington Post, The Daily Beast, Reuters, NPR, New York Post, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, TIME, Bloomberg Businessweek, Newsweek, Forbes, Washington Post, Politico, LA Times, The Boston Globe, Wired Sans serif boat: BBC, NBC, Vox, Medium, Buzzfeed, Fox, ABC, CNN, Mashable, Us Weekly, The Onion, People, USA Today, Telegraph, NY Daily News, Fast Company I think both serif and sans serif fonts can be readable if you pick a nice one. Leading, tracking, kerning, font weight, contrast, hierarchy, and minding characters per line are also important factors in readability. If you're still font curious and want help making better font choices read Stop Stealing Sheep and Find Out How Type Works. So the main point that both Jacob and Alex make is that now with the improvement of technology there are no grounds for using the "better legibility" argument for sans serif in digital medium. That is is now a myth. But rather the choice is now stylistic, based upon the designer's subjective aesthetic sensibilities. My personal taste is san serif or flared serif for titles and headings (or "flared" sans like Trajan sans pro) with a serif body font. Your taste may differ. De gustibus non est disputandum -- In matters of taste, there can be no disputes. Nancy wrote: "Web designers are at the mercy of the end user's web devices and settings.   We can build great stylesheets with terrific typography but that doesn't mean the end user sees it that way." But at least when it comes to what type face they see I can control that using "@font-face" ... View more

Nancy O said: "My biggest other complaint lately -- and this is not limited to the web, it effects all UIs -- fonts are too small and/or lack sufficient contrast to be comfortably viewed on screen.    Who decided that gray text on a gray background was a good idea?" Even on a white back ground gray text is hard to read. It lacks contrast, bad typography. The "designer" forgot that the page was meant to be read and not stared as an art object. Good typography should be transparent and not get in the way of reading the page. ... View more

It seems that Barbr was the only one who looked at those sites closely. They are not about splashing X number of fonts on your website but rather the art and science of typography as applied to the web: "Typography is the art and technique of arranging type to make written language legible, readable, and appealing when displayed. The arrangement of type involves selecting typefaces, point sizes, line lengths, line-spacing, and letter-spacing, and adjusting the space between pairs of letters (kerning). more at Typography - Wikipedia I have always had an attraction to typography and selection of fonts but that was heighten after I read this article in the NY Times about how people are subtly affected by which font is used in a text. That using certain fonts will make the same text more accepted than if other fonts are used. And that academic papers using certain fonts get higher scores than other fonts. Take away -- if you want to appear credible and authoritative do not use sans-sarif fonts for body text. But there is a lot more to it than that and the two websites I posted links to cover these points in more detail for those who want to create websites that stand out from the crowd but in a way that is almost imperceptible but very effective – by applying good typography. VL Branko ... View more

Hello Babr Since it is meant for web typography I don't know how much it would help for InDesign which is for books and hardcopy. Of course, the web typography is derived from hard copy so there is some common ground. ... View more

And what would you consider objective and current? ... View more

Nancy, condolences on your loss. While this is not a direct reply to who should be first - walk in or phone in but a general policy. Many long years ago I read an article in a magazine for the restaurant industry that gave advice that is applicable to everyone as individuals or as business entities. Succinctly put "if a person has a good experience with you they will tell 10 people; if they have a bad experience they will tell 20." I etched that into my mind and as a result, I get a tremendous amount of return business. Word of mouth is absolutely the best advertising you can get. I give the same advice to my clients. Ussnorway gave us an example of telling 20. When my father died I called the bank and they said they needed to see proper ID before they would give us the safety deposit box. When I walked in with my two brothers they looked at our faces and said "you all look like your Dad, that is ID enough." And handed everything over. ... View more

but to hack on the file-system to get rid of this $%&-menuitem is plain stupid! Maybe I'm stupid, but I have had my own PC since 1979 (TRS-80) and have used command line mode in TRS-DOS, CPM, DR DOS, various flavors of PC and MS DOS. So I am not afraid to go into the innards of the machine within limits. Besides if I goof up I have at least 3 Time Machine backups that can bring it back to where I was before. If you don't feel comfortable going in that deep then don't. That would be stupid. ... View more