On 04/03/14 08:22, Max wrote:
The choice of the 'right' fonts is very
situation-dependent. A font
that's perfect for body copy might be terrible for headlines, and vice
versa. Therefore, the selection of typefaces can not be left to the
operating system, because as you rightly pointed out, it will always
use the same default font. While that default font probably isn't the
worst of all fonts for any situation, it is certainly not the best.
However, delivering the best experience must be our goal. Therefore,
it is important that the decisions which font to use in which
situation is consciously made. Using a font stack is just a good
practice to ensure that users who can't load webfonts or whatever
still get a font that was picked carefully to suit the situation. That
way, we as designers can still deliver the best possible experience
even to users who for whatever reason can't use our first font choice.
But that doesn't answer the question either. /Why/ would this be the
best experience? /Why/ do you say it is a good practice? If there is a
very specific 'right font', why aren't we using it as a webfont? In web
design, that's really the only way to ensure that users will get a
specific font, because not all users will have a font, or even any of a
type of fonts, installed.
But why would we, for an interface for an online encyclopedia and
similar, need something so specific at all? This wasn't a problem before
- why is it now? Why did the generic 'serif' and 'sans-serif' become
insufficient?
That's what I want to know.
-I