• fishbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Verdana is my fucking jam. Good spacing and very legible at different font sizes. My only two gripes: Lower case “l” (L) being a straight line and the number 0 has no cross through it. Not major though, cause they’re still pretty distinct from similar characters.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      55 minutes ago

      verdana is great for small sizes on screen. it was designed specifically for that purpose so it would look good with pixellation. it’s probably the most successfully designed Microsoft font to date. if you want to type anything in like 5-6pt font verdana is a great choice. but that also makes it bulky and inelegant at larger font sizes.

      if you want a sans serif default ms font to use in larger sizes the segoe font family is pretty good.

      • fishbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        32 minutes ago

        The biggest factor for me with fonts is readability (I have my notepad++ default to verdana at 16pt font on a 1080p monitor which is my ideal). It’s probably worth mentioning that my eyesight isn’t great and I think I have some kind of brain related trouble with print.

        Segoe is okay, but the font is really thin and the spacing is too narrow for me.

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 minutes ago

          yeah I said for big sizes. 16 is more mid, and not perfect for segoe’s thin lines. i think verdana is still a bit too bulky for 16 but for any kind of vision impairment it should be great. you might want to try trebuchet. another low contrast default ms font but it’s a bit more humanist and pleasing to look at in those sizes.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        47 minutes ago

        they’re called lowercase numbers and they’re designed to look good in paragraph text. for example if you’re reading this comment, mentioning the year 1997 suddenly puts four full height characters as if I typed one word in all caps, while in lowercase numbers it would look more like if I typed the word iggy (1 is x height while 9 and 7 have descenders like g and y).

        they’re not designed to be used in math or for longer number sequences. for that you have the full height (uppercase) numbers that most typeface should still have.

        0123456789 in lowercase have the same heights as oizgjpbyfq - just as random as that word’s letter heights are. which is not random at all, you’re just not supposed to use it like that.

      • pseudo@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Their shape is beautiful (from 3 to 9) but why were they not written on the same line?

    • pseudo@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Very nice! What is the difference btw small caps and petite capitals?