Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
It depends. If it's for onscreen body text, Times is noticeably more readable than Garamond, although Garamond can work well for headings and titling.
If it's for print then Garamond works well either way, and is a nice change from the ubiquitous Times.
A few years ago, for some reason I don't remember, I set Firefox to use Garamond by default on my old PC, which I didn't often use. When I next used it a few months later, it took me ages to work out why the front page of Slashdot was so hard to read
It depends. If it's for onscreen body text, Times is noticeably more readable than Garamond, although Garamond can work well for headings and titling.
It was for exactly that purpose
If it's for print then Garamond works well either way, and is a nice change from the ubiquitous Times.
and for exactly that reason.
A few years ago, for some reason I don't remember, I set Firefox to use Garamond by default on my old PC, which I didn't often use. When I next used it a few months later, it took me ages to work out why the front page of Slashdot was so hard to read
It depends. If it's for onscreen body text, Times is noticeably more readable than Garamond, although Garamond can work well for headings and titling.
Garamond is better at larger sizes, and perhaps benefits from attention to spacing, but for a text heavy site I'd probably go with something different anyway.
Where are we going? And what’s with this hand basket?
Comment