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