-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.

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.