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