Comments(0)
This 
post on FontFeed reffers to the now very famous list of Web 2.0 company logos exploring which typographies are currently popular in logo design.
Arial & Helvetica in various forms are always the safe bet . 
Comments(0)
Software Usability Research Laboratory at Wichita State University is researching font usability and they have published several interesting surveys that deal with the new ClearType fonts from Microsoft and comparing them with older ones.
The one called Perception of Fonts: Perceived Personality Traits and Uses was focused on finding out how people perceive different fonts (formal, attractive, practical, creative etc.) and how they would use them (websites, online texts, business documents, advertising etc.)
I think some of the results are a bit weird and only show that most people have (very) poor taste. 
For example:
Monotype Corsiva, Kristen ITC & Comic Sans (come on!!) scored highest on Web Graphics use and Times New Roman, Verdana & Cambria won computer programming category rather that the only true answer – monospaced fonts such as Courier New or Consolas.
Times New Roman is still the universal king of the hill but the new OpenType squad is catching up fast. Especially Cambria but that’s really no surprise since it was specifically designed to be a substitute for TNR and described by its designer as a “robust, all-purpose workhorse text face.”
The second survey deals with Legibility of Two New ClearType Fonts – Cambria and Constantia in direct comparison with Times New Roman.
Not suprisingly both scored higher marks in the character recognition test:
Cambria – 92.87%
Constantia – 87.80%
Times NR – 87.55%
I’ll also point out one other research: A Comparison of Popular Online Fonts: Which Size and Type is Best?
Yaaay… I finaly got the scientific proof I wanted – any font set at 10pt or less is a bad idea for body text. Now stop torturing my eyes.
Yes, I know it’s a bit ironic for me to say that since this blog suffers from the same problem. But that’s out of my hands unfortunately.
Comments(0)
After months of neglect I’ve managed to come up with a new photography portfolio site for myself (must be 7th or so version since 2001). This time around I wanted to keep it as simple as possible.
For the curious among you… the first one was hosted on Brinkster but unfurtunately did not get picked up by the web archive. Well, fortunate for me though (believe me, it wasn’t a pretty sight).
I’m kindly asking for any feedback you might have. I’m aware of some problems & working to fix them but there may be some details I’ve missed. Functional issues, design issues, whatever you come up with is fine.
