Hey there, it looks like this is your first time here. May I suggest subscribing to this blog and checking out these articles.

SOME RANDOM DUDE

« Tonkyou and Iconitos pages updated
DIVless project update »

Typography on the Web - Beauty is Not Letterform Deep

20.02.06 @ 12:29 pm

“Words without thoughts never to heaven go.” -William Shakespeare

For the last few years, design on the web has strongly shifted towards a more usable and standards driven approach. It is now commonly accepted that HTML text is far more usable than images containing text. However, many web designers still use images for type due to the typographic control they obtain. No one argues with the fact that using HTML text instead of images for type is more usable and ultimately better design as a whole. Nonetheless, many feel that strong typographic design cannot be achieved without defaulting to images for text. Because of these reasons, many still continue to use images rather than HTML text due to the typographic control they have with Illustrator, Photoshop, Fireworks, etc. In my opinion, web typography with the aid of CSS and other tools, has the potential to be typographically strong. In addition, text which is meant to be read or to perform a user or system-based function that is not HTML text could arguably be considered poor typographic design.

To the Beginning and Back Again

I know this is going to ruffle more than a few people’s feathers, so let me take a step back and explain how I came to this opinion. Before the web, print was the only show in town for graphic designers. The written word had one main purpose - to be read. While typographic design obviously took the visual into account, other factors came into play such as informational hierarchy and legibility. No matter how strong the visual composition, if half of the people could not read the content or discern the hierarchy quickly enough, it could not be considered strong typographic design.

Fast forward to the internet generation. Reading the written word on the internet was only one of many ways to interact with type. The written word took on a whole other dimension. Words could now automatically be cataloged, searched upon, compared, indexed, copied and pasted, translated and saved. For those who were not very interested in any of the technical aspects of the internet, this did not matter very much. All that mattered was that HTML text was a pretty horrid sight to behold. Honestly, not many people would argue with them. HTML text was frankly not enjoyable to read. There were only a handful of safe fonts, while large text was horribly mutilated by pixelization. Kerning, tracking and leading were only a dream.

webshot
Herbert Matter Cover Design, 1964

Go ahead, just try to put this together in HTML without images for text. Seriously, I dare you.

Now jump to today when CSS is widely(ish) supported, more fonts are (becoming) available and major operating systems render system text with a little more grace. That being said, visual control of typography on the web still is not remotely close to that of print. Nonetheless, the pill is a little easier to swallow. In my opinion, there are enough tools and options available to make the use of images for text, rather than HTML, a poor choice in most circumstances. Strong typographic print design must always address readability. When thinking about typography on the internet, one should strongly consider how the typographic design takes into consideration usability, Section 508 specifications, readability for visually impaired and SEO. Visual appearance, while arguably the most important aspect of typographic design, is still only one piece of the puzzle.

A “Web Page” is not a Page

Many designers I speak with compare a web page to a poster or a page of a book. Unfortunately, this is a poor analogy for many reasons. While the same methods for layout design can be used on the web, comparing books and poster design to web design does not take into consideration the functional and interactive attributes of nearly all web sites. The written word and the “page” it is contained on is much more than words on a piece of paper. Basic typographic interactions on a web site include finding text, copying text on the screen, and behind the scenes indexing that goes on with search engines that spider through the site. For example, imagine if Gmail decided all of the sudden to render all your emails as perfectly kerned GIF images in your favorite font. Even the most fervent typophile would be furious. At this point we take for granted the new dimension of web text. Users expect certain aspects of type functionality and become frustrated when it is missing. A web designer must be careful not to strip away valuable interactive and usability typographic elements to satisfy only the visual attributes of a web site.

Something I try to do is to look at the purpose of each typographical element on a “page”.

  • Is this word/phrase important enough to be useful for search engines?
  • Do I want the user to have the functionality to be able to search, find, and select text?
  • Is this text important to understanding the page? If so, how does this impact barriers such as visual (blind users) and language (non-English users)
  • Would this information be more useful if it contained dynamic information from Javascript or a server-side language?
  • How strong is the typographic branding of the company/organization/institution this site is being developed for? For instance, Apple utilizes the fonts Lucida Grande and Apple Garamond as design elements that would most likely be necessary to use in a web site to keep visual consistency with the company’s other marketing divisions (print, TV, etc.).

Designing the Cart before the Horse?

As designers in the web medium, we are responsible to design the function and form of a web site. We need to accept the fact that with typography on the web, function and form are attached at the hip. Designers who only consider the aesthetic aspect of typography while disregarding all other aspects are cheapening the power of the written word and the full potential it holds on the internet. They hold the appearance of the words higher than the meaning they contain - which, in many circles, is completely backwards. Strong typographic design should bring the written word to its greatest potential. To ignore the voluminous advantages words receive by being in HTML shows a lack of regard for the author of those words and for those who read it (or potentially do not read it). I think a good question to ask is, does the visual appearance of the subject communicate more than the words themselves and aid the user’s experience more than the inherent functionality of HTML text. In my opinion, that would be the one of the few reasons to use non-HTML text, such as a logo. Even in these situations, leveraging CSS techniques can provide the best of both worlds - allowing for the image you want your viewer to see while having HTML text conspicuously hidden when viewed with modern browsers.

Examples of Strong Usable Typography on the Web

    • webshot

    • RyanBrill.com

      Simple hierarchy, organization, a strong grid and visual consistency are fundamental to the typography on Ryan Brill’s site. This is a good example - no gimmicks, just strong design that does not need to use bells and whistles to make up for a poor foundation.

    • webshot

    • ShaunInman.com

      For those who simply cannot accept Arial titles, Shaun Inman’s site uses sIFR to add a nice touch to his titles. sIFR is not perfect. Fuzzy letters and still subpar typographic control hamper it. Nonetheless, it is a huge step up from standard text and the fact that it degrades beautifully makes it all the better.

    • webshot

    • Clear Left

      This site uses an absolutely great typographical technique - the default font for the site is Mryiad, a font that comes pre-packaged with Adobe software. This means that the vast majority of visual designers will be able to view the site with a much nicer font due to the pervasiveness of Adobe products in the creative community. Thanks to CSS, backup fonts are specified for those without the Mryiad font - allowing for graceful degradation.

What about Flash?

Being a Flash developer, I am well aware how this article may seem hypocritical as I am aiding in the propagation of less usable type. However, as I stated earlier, if the visual appearance of the typography on a web site holds more weight than the meaning, in my opinion, all bets are off. As we all know, some sites rely less on what they are saying and more on how they are saying it. For example, take one of Nike’s experience sites - the interaction and visual facets of the site far outweigh any narrative content they are trying to communicate to the user.

    • webshot
    • It does not take long to understand that the visual and experiential are running the show here. For a site like this, why the hell not?

When it comes to Flash, I do not think it is a question of what you want your site to look like. In my opinion, it is much more of what you want to communicate with your site and how you want the user to interact with it. There are best practices which should be followed to make Flash sites much more usable, such as allowing your as text to be selectable. Will it make type in Flash as usable as HTML text? Definitely not, but it will help.

Conclusion

Making web type look good is a design challenge, not a roadblock. To avoid it by strictly using images or by recklessly throwing system text in with no regard for visual aspects are both examples of bad design. There are a plethora of ways to improve your typography on the web while keeping the text in HTML. However, you are still not going to get the same control as when designing for print. In addition, it can definitely be a challenge for those who are not exactly technically savvy. That is what makes the web what it is though, you either love it or hate it. A more standard design today will more easily be able to use tomorrow’s stronger typographical controls for the web. I can speak for myself when I say that day cannot come soon enough.

References

Here are a few places to start in order to help your web typography shine.

  • A List Apart - Great general HTML/CSS site
  • Mezzoblue - Revised CSS Image Replacement
  • sIFR - Flash replacement text tool
  • Web Aim - Flash Accessibility Overview

, , ,

Liked This Post?

Well then, post the article to del.icio.us and subscribe to Some Random Dude's RSS Feed.

This entry was posted on Monday, February 20th, 2006 at 12:29 pm and is filed under Design. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Show some comment love.

Total Donations for July:

$8.50

Want to help a good cause? Want to get this number higher? Learn how.

34 Responses to “Typography on the Web - Beauty is Not Letterform Deep”

  1. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    You write about typography - in a FIXED SIZE FONT that is too small for many folks to even READ? You have to be joking !!!


  2. A CSS mistake on my part for those viewing the site with IE - my apologies. Thanks for pointing that out.


  3. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    mmmm….small type is so sexy….


  4. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    It’s small even on Safari…. I also noticed that two of the three sites you linked as examples of “Strong usable typography” also have pretty small type. Interesting….

    In addition, they’re visually on the drab side. Do you think usable has to mean less exciting? Or are you talking strictly about HTML- vs. image-type? I get your points about usability overall, and I agree that it’s good to be conscious of when a person needs to search or select text, but other than that I get a feeling of rigidness that seems to go beyond what’s necessary.

    And anyways, how do you decide when a piece of text needs to be searchable? And I don’t follow the bit about blind users…. Are you saying to consider when sites are converted into Braille?

    I think your example of the Nike site is great, though–a lot of it depends on the desired effect of the piece, and that answers some of my questioning above.

    (And one other thing, PJ–just FYI, this window into which I’m typing has no scroll bar!). :)


  5. Very good thoughts, here are my replies:

    “It’s small even on Safari…. I also noticed that two of the three sites you linked as examples of “Strong usable typography” also have pretty small type. Interesting….”

    My opinion is, as long as it has the ability to scale Cntrl+’+'/Cmd+’+', I think it’s OK to have smaller type within managable boundaries. There are a lot of studies that show problems with vertical scrolling. Obviously for long articles this is going to be next to impossible. The more you can get ‘above the fold’ without absolutely unreadable type, in my opinion, the better.

    “In addition, they’re visually on the drab side. Do you think usable has to mean less exciting? Or are you talking strictly about HTML- vs. image-type? I get your points about usability overall, and I agree that it’s good to be conscious of when a person needs to search or select text, but other than that I get a feeling of rigidness that seems to go beyond what’s necessary.”

    I by no means believe that usable needs to be less exciting. Web typography may just need to be looked at in a different context - it would be unfair to directly compare print typographic design to typographic design on the internet. My opinion is that you’re designing typography as much for function as you are for form. When you put images in place of regular text, all the function goes out the window. That could be considered a design flaw. I think we need to continue to figure out methods of bringing HTML type up to the level of print - not try to force print methods on designing for the web. Another thing to take into consideration is that most of the examples I used were blog-based sites. For blogs, the written word is its core. That’s why I think it’s very important to consider how you are trying to communicate to visitors when thinking of your typographic design methods for a particular site.

    “And anyways, how do you decide when a piece of text needs to be searchable? And I don’t follow the bit about blind users…. Are you saying to consider when sites are converted into Braille?”

    I think what needs to be selectable/searchable is a question that is most suited for the authors/creators of the site. As for blind users, here’s a good read on how screen readers work.

    “(And one other thing, PJ–just FYI, this window into which I’m typing has no scroll bar!).”

    I’m blushing in embarrasment. It’s been fixed.


  6. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    excellent design essay. please write more!

    as a print designer who is more than guilty of using image-based text and tiny fonts on websites, I had to take a moment to reflect on your words. Your argument for pro-HTML text is solid–the logic exceeds any aesthetic based rebuttal. Here are my personal thoughts from the perspective of a traumatized print designer who has seen too much.

    After four years in college designing and worshipping (print) typography and then finding a fulltime job, i have met a startling revelation. Websites and flash projects rule the design world. The occasional print project feels like a reward compared to the daily toil of designing web interfaces (with its long list of restrictions.) I can imagine the plight of a seasoned designer who went to college manually setting type without the aid of Illustrator! The rules and understanding of graphic design was shaped by a non-computer based world where kerning and leading was not bound by any programming rule. Paper and other tangible material WAS the status-quo. Now, the electronic age has given designers a new canvas–a computer screen. Designers must adapt to this new environment, and unfortunately, the terrain is rough and unforgiving.

    A combination of acceptance, adaptation, and compromise is my solution to this argument. Can the pretentious, typophile forgo minor kerning issues for the functionality of programming? and can a programmer, at times, attempt to exceed his/her limits for the sake of beautiful typography? I believe that an understanding of both fields can lead to a symbiotic relationship and the emergence of beautiful, non-boring web design. obviously, we are seeing clear solutions and explorations in the website examples showcased by PJ.


  7. I really think that’s what it comes down to. I think we need to look to print design as the sort of typographical control we should have on the web someday. We need to keep pushing the envelope of how we can acheive our creative ideas on the web. However, we also need to be aware of the limitations and find creative ways to work within them until those sorts of tools exist.


  8. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    You just taught me Cmd+’+’ right now. Thanks! But really, I wonder how many people use that….

    (Several Cmd+’+'’s later…)

    Interesting about the screen readers for the blind…. I guess I was thinking of my general take on legibility in print design: you can’t always design something for the most visually impaired portion of your intended audience. For example, if you have a brochure that you figure will be read by mostly people with good eyesight, but 2% of which have trouble reading type below 12 pt., you shouldn’t make everything 14 pt. becaues your design will look intended for that small part of the audience only. Really, those people need to get better glasses. And I think sometimes the same may be true for the blind: designers should keep it in mind, when practical, but ultimately it’s the screen readers that need to improve.

    I don’t know… does anyone think that’s too harsh? I’ve shown some designs where one line of type will be set in 9pt. of, say, Officina, and some account manager will comment that he or she can’t read it. My usual response is usually: “It’s legible; perhaps you need glasses?”

    Getting back to type in interactive design, I think right now there are great limitations with the technology, so I agree that it is what it is: not always beautiful compared to print design, but not always terrible either. I guess the key is to find the right balance depending on what its function is.


  9. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    Wow, pat. that was harsh, but i know every hardcore print designer is cheering in praise of you. glasses is the answer to everyone who thinks the type is too small!

    type in interactive design has a long way to go. look how long it took print design to develop! patience and time will yield great results…


  10. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    Personally I like the graphical approach better because your title can be much more creative. I’m all about creativity.


  11. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    Great article! You hit some nails on the head.

    However, there is one thing bugging me. And that’s the idea that web typography has so many constraints. That designing for the web is so hard, that “Making web type look good is a design challenge, not a roadblock”. That we should try to bring web typography to the level of print design.

    I think that is a wrong view. I think it’s the other way around. Web typography and design is much much more advanced and powerful then print design. Isn’t it incredible that I can read your website on my 21′ monitor as well as on my 250px cellular phone, that people can increase the fontsize with a few clicks if they want to, that blind people can access the same message by using a screen reader, that I can copy paste the text if I want to? etc etc.

    It’s print design that has all the constraints. Once printed, it can be inaccessible, it cannot easily be used in other ways, etc etc.


  12. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    Small addition: my quote of you can be misinterpreted. I didn’t want to say you are wrong saying that. I think we are on the same line here, I think you are correct in saying that making web type look good is not a roadblock.


  13. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    Ok, well done on the change! Now I can & will read it.


  14. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    I think, Matthijs, that print is much more advanced in terms of typographical form adjustments like kearning and character manipulation. HTML is much less sophisticated visually. Interaction does have its advantages, but I don’t think that means the web is typographically superior. We’re talking form vs. function here, I suppose.


  15. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    If you are speaking about overall convenience and accessibility to a broad audience, then web design has exceeded print design in functionality. However, from the designer’s perspective, there are many boundaries that limit us from selecting specific fonts and creating certain visual effects that can be easily achieved in print.

    i still perceive typography as the black sheep of web design, despite the field’s newfound integration and awareness of type. Until the advent of computers, typography was created by hand (ie: calligraphy). Even with the convenience of the printing press, each letter was chosen, and set by a person. Now, typography, a human process by nature, has to fit into the rules of computer coding, such as adhering to certain web-friendly fonts. in a previous comment, Pat G. said:

    “in addition, they’re visually on the drab side. Do you think usable has to mean less exciting? I get your points about usability overall, and I agree that it’s good to be conscious of when a person needs to search or select text, but other than that I get a feeling of rigidness that seems to go beyond what’s necessary.”

    I think people perceive web typography as ‘drab’ because the majority of it lacks the spontaneity, variety, and subtle human touches we are accustomed to seeing in print pieces. (ie: herbert matter’s cover design featured in PJ’s article.) While technology relentlessly improves and redefines itself, I hope it will integrate new ways of making web typography more accessible to the designer’s touch.


  16. Wow, this has really turned into a full-fledged discussion.

    I think the lastest debate about the superiority of web type vs. print type really comes down to what you see as typography. If you feel that typography is as much art as it is communication and that the written word needs to communicate beyond the words themselves, print type is obviously the winner. If you look at typography as a tool for communication and the more ways you can interact, the better, then you’re probably going to side with web type.

    As Pat stated, this is the age-old form vs. function debate… The more things that change, the more they stay the same. :) I think Matthijs brought up a very good point about something I was very unclear about - I think we as designers for the web need to try bring web type to the visual level of print. In terms of interaction, web type is far and away the leader.

    The point of this article is that we should strive to bring web typography beyond the ‘drab’, but not at the expense of what makes the web so appealing. Nonetheless, with the constraints we deal with, we need to re-examine what is good typographic design for the web medium.


  17. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    Indeed, this turned into a very interesting discussion. I’m glad I can/could add my 2 cts. Hope it’s clear I was a bit oversimplifying, but that was on purpose. I like a bit of discussion. And my point came across I think :)

    As somerandomdude says, there is a need to bring the visual level of web typo up. I have felt the pain as well, when viewing a font which was nice to look at at 2em size get realy ugly at smaller sizes. I have experimented with sIFR to be able to use a nicer font. However, losing some functionality like right-click menus has been the reason to ditch it again.

    As long as we don’t have monitors with 300dpi and systems with 100+ fonts it will be a compromise to render that header type visualy perfect. But looking at some of the sites you mention in the article or sites from Bowman for example, shows you can do a lot of interesting stuff with typography on the web. It might not be enough for the pro type setter or graphic designer, but it will be for the avarage visitor.


  18. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    after reading many of the comments, i will admit that at times, print designers scrutinize every nuance of typography to the point of absurdity. That is the nature of the typical, Type-A, print designer! Only print designers care how far apart letters are spaced or whether the curve of a certain serif conveys a specific feeling. Matthjis said it best: “…you can do a lot of interesting stuff with typography on the web. It might not be enough for the pro type setter or graphic designer, but it will be for the avarage visitor.” I think we (print folks) need to keep that in mind when working on websites and look at the overall purpose of the project, where essential functionality won’t be compromised by a design element.


  19. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    We seem to all agree that HTML text is insufficiently beautiful. But, are we not appreciating it’s visual quirks? Are we being too demanding?

    I’m thinking back to the 1980’s when video game graphics were seriously lacking. Everyone dreamed of a time when the games would look more realistic, but now that they are, I find myself gravitating back towards the blocky visuals of the 80’s and finding their flaws to be quite appealing.

    Another example would be letterpress printing, where the imperfections are really what makes the type look great.

    What does everyone think? Is HTML type beautiful-ugly, or ugly-ugly?


  20. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    i see your point, pat. oh the nostalgia of 80’s video graphics! i loved my atari set.

    however, i see the imperfections of a letterpress as a completely different thing. This brings back my argument about typography having a human element. The flaws of certain type treatments breathes life into a piece. THAT is beautiful.

    on the other hand, i see (most) web type as strangely rigid, symmetrical, and void of character. It doesn’t help that most HTML text is confined to a strict grid system, reminiscent of traditional swiss design. i feel web typography is neutral rather than ugly or beautiful. it rests somewhere safely in the middle…


  21. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    True, true, Kellie Kat. They are both forms of imperfection. Do you think that only human imperfection is interesting, then? I might agree, but I’m not sure.

    But I disagree about your last comment. Neutrality is safety, safety is cowardice, cowardice is ugliness. :) Dramatic enough?


  22. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    safety is not always cowardice. i have many examples, but lets not get detracted from the topic here…
    regarding the comment about the 80’s graphics, it seems you are speaking about finding beauty in nostalgia, which seems to be a common trend in design. Woodtype ornaments, edwardian scripts, and typewriter fonts are everywhere in the media. Perhaps in 50 years we will look back at HTML typefaces with the same reverence.


  23. Gravatar
    the irken armada (aka:kellie)
    February 24th, 2006 at 1:42 pm

    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    hey pj-

    “Apple utilizes the fonts Lucida Grande and Apple Garamond as design elements”

    Its actually Lucida Grande and Myriad Set. (Maybe they used Apple Garamond in the past?) i couldn’t resist making a comment. Apple fonts are permanently imprinted into my brain. ;-)


  24. Wow, I have to catch up, there have been a plethora of great thoughts. Yeah, you’re right, they phased out Apple Garamond - my bad. :) Still, it has left an indelible mark on Apple branding.

    I’ll respond to all these comments tonight or tomorrow.


  25. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for July

    The issue with images vs HTML text is definatley form vs function.

    I believe that the HTML source documents should be as standard complient and semanticly meaningfull as possible, while visual formatting and layout can be applied as and when needed - that is when the “page” is “viewed” the browser interprets the CSS and manipulates the visual reperesentation of the document as the designer specified (hopefully). It is at this stage a script or other text -> image replacement technique can be used.

    This way you can start with a “solid foundation” of standard low-tech but fully functional hyperlinked semanticly meaningful HTML validated pages, and build layers of presentation and behaviour on top of this.

    However this is *not* a long-term solution for such a basic and important function of web browsers.


  26. I’m a little late on these replies, sorry about that. Work has been busy.

    -Matthijs,

    “I have experimented with sIFR to be able to use a nicer font. However, losing some functionality like right-click menus has been the reason to ditch it again.”

    Great point. That’s a serious downside to sIFR and one should be aware of the usability dropoff that goes along with it.

    “As long as we don’t have monitors with 300dpi and systems with 100+ fonts it will be a compromise to render that header type visualy perfect. But looking at some of the sites you mention in the article or sites from Bowman for example, shows you can do a lot of interesting stuff with typography on the web. It might not be enough for the pro type setter or graphic designer, but it will be for the avarage visitor.”

    Exactly. We need to accept the technical limitations and work within them instead of stubbornly trying to fit a square peg in the round hole.

    -Pat

    “I’m thinking back to the 1980’s when video game graphics were seriously lacking. Everyone dreamed of a time when the games would look more realistic, but now that they are, I find myself gravitating back towards the blocky visuals of the 80’s and finding their flaws to be quite appealing.”

    Is this an example of ‘the grass is greener’? We push and push for more visual control and when we have it, we come to the conclusion that it’s not all it is cracked up to be. See, the problem is, when you have that added control, you have to produce something with it. I think a lot of people like working with less control as a means to cover up their own design inhibitions. For instance, Kellie’s example of imperfect letterpress type can help cover the imperfections of our own design. Compare that to a page full of Futura - you have nowhere to hide. I say this because I’ve seen myself do it a plethora of times with a degree in shame. Sure, it looked cool - but was it any of my doing or the object I used to create the imperfections. While I’ve gotten somewhat off subject, I think this brings up an interesting point. The web is currently pushing for more and more visual control - there will be a point where the Arials and Verdanas are adored once again. Just give it enough time.

    -Kellie

    “i feel web typography is neutral rather than ugly or beautiful. it rests somewhere safely in the middle…”

    Interesting concept - although I’d say that three or four years ago it was just flat out ugly.

    “safety is not always cowardice.”

    I have to agree with you on that one. While we may not enjoy it, we can’t always go buck-wild on a design and have it be relevant to the subject at hand.


  27. […] Alguna cosa sobre tipografa en la web: tres artculos (Typography on the Web - Beauty is Not Letterform Deep, A Guide to Practical Typography y Academics of Worn) un par de ’showcases’ (Typography for Headlines y The Logos of Web 2.0). […]


  28. […] Der Webdesigner, der sowohl Form als auch Funktion kontolliert, sollte sich fragen, ob die Form der Wörter wichtiger als ihre Bedeutung ist: Does the visual appearance of the subject communicate more that the words themselves and aid the user’s experience more than the inherent functionality of HTML text? Typography on the Web […]


  29. […] Typography on the Web - Beauty is Not Letterform Deep For the last few years, design on the web has strongly shifted towards a more usable and standards driven approach. It is now commonly accepted that HTML text is far more usable than images containing text. However, many web designers still use images for type due to the typographic control they obtain. […]


  30. […] While I support standards, I feel like the web design community has become the design equivalent to the Puritans - drab and frighteningly conservative. While I have been known to be Puritan-ish on some occasions, I think there are quite a few that take it even further. Some may understandably ask what this has to do with the design of a site. My response is that we are so concerned with making a site standards-centric that we are not thinking about how the site should communicate. This conservatism leads to relatively un-engaging layout designs which immediately causes a dilemma for the designer - how to improve the visual aesthetics of a design where the fundamental form/structure is already locked in. This, in my opinion, pushes many down the road of decorating rather than designing. […]


  31. […] Typography on the Web - Beauty is Not Letterform Deep : article on using HTML text instead of images. […]


  32. […] Check out: Typographic Alternatives to Helvetica and Typography on the Web - Beauty is Not Letterform Deep. […]


  33. […] —— Še malo o tipografiji na spletu […]


  34. […] Typography on the Web - Beauty is Not Letterform Deep […]


Leave a Reply

Additional Doodads

Subscribe to Some Random Dude

Related Entries:

Most Commented Pages