font type

Hello,

I would like the font of my website to be Bank Gothic. Since that font is
not available on every pc, what would be the best way to implement that ?

thanks,
Marty

Re: font type

Scripsit Martijn Swart:

> I would like the font of my website to be Bank Gothic.

Stop wanting that.

> Since that
> font is not available on every pc, what would be the best way to
> implement that ?

Gain total control over the world and force everyone to install the font on
their system.

There are also some completely unrealistic ways of trying to achieve it,
like WEFT. You could also completely ruin your web site and turn it into a
collection of PDF documents with embedded fonts.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Re: font type

> Gain total control over the world and force everyone to install the font
> on their system.

I would like that, but too time consuming ;o)

> There are also some completely unrealistic ways of trying to achieve it,
> like WEFT. You could also completely ruin your web site and turn it into a
> collection of PDF documents with embedded fonts.

I thought it would be unrealistic, but the reason I wanted it is that it is
part of my "house style" (business cards etc. in same font).

Thanks for answering.

Regards,
Marty

Re: font type

"Martijn Swart" writes:

> I would like the font of my website to be Bank Gothic. Since that font is
> not available on every pc, what would be the best way to implement that ?

That depends on what exactly you mean by "implement that." If you're asking
how to display Bank Gothic on computers that don't have that font, then you
are out of luck.

On the other hand, you can have *some* influence over what happens when Bank
Gothic isn't available, by supplying a list of suggested fonts in CSS. If a
user's browser supports CSS, and if the user hasn't configured it to ignore
font suggestions, the browser will use the first font available from those
listed. You should be sure to list one of the generic "family" names last,
as the final fallback if nothing else is available.

Example CSS:

BODY {
font-family: "Bank Gothic" Times serif;
}

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Re: font type

On 7 Jun, 13:44, Sherm Pendley wrote:
> "Martijn Swart" writes:

> On the other hand, you can have *some* influence over what happens when Bank
> Gothic isn't available, by supplying a list of suggested fonts in CSS. If a
> user's browser supports CSS, and if the user hasn't configured it to ignore
> font suggestions, the browser will use the first font available from those
> listed. You should be sure to list one of the generic "family" names last,
> as the final fallback if nothing else is available.
>
> Example CSS:
>
> BODY {
> font-family: "Bank Gothic" Times serif;
> }

You forgot commas: font-family: "Bank Gothic", Times, serif;

Re: font type

"Roy A." writes:

> You forgot commas: font-family: "Bank Gothic", Times, serif;

Wow, this is the first time I can recall having been misled by an O'Reilly
book! The first edition of "Dynamic HTML: The Definitive Reference" states
on pp. 868 that the list is space-delimited.

You're right though, the W3 spec says it's comma-delimited. Time to update
my library... :-(

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Re: font type

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 12:39:25 +0200, "Martijn Swart"
wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I would like the font of my website to be Bank Gothic. Since that font is
>not available on every pc, what would be the best way to implement that ?

What you would like is irrelevant. Are you writing the site for
yourself or for your visitors? If the latter, then let them decide what
fonts they prefer.

THE WEB IS NOT PAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you think you can make it act like paper you are on the road to
oblivion.

http://pages.prodigy.net/chris_beall/TC/

Go to that link. Read. Absorb. Act accordingly.

Re: font type

Scripsit Roy A.:

>> BODY {
>> font-family: "Bank Gothic" Times serif;
>> }
>
> You forgot commas: font-family: "Bank Gothic", Times, serif;

That would fix the syntax, but the rule still isn't very useful, from any
perspective. The Times font is rather rare on users' computers; "Times New
Roman" is much more common, and typically the default.

Times, Times New Roman, or any other serif font isn't a reasonable
substitute Bank Gothic, which seems to be a sans-serif font, with a rather
geometric (square) design, with small-caps as lowercase letters. Using
font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
font-variant: small-caps
would take you much closer, though still rather far from Bank Gothic.

On the other hand, a font like Bank Gothic is quite unsuitable for use as a
basic font, especially for copy text. Bulks of text in small-caps text is
almost as poorly readable as all-uppercase.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Re: font type

In article <4667ec84$0$37726$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl>, Martijn Swart
wrote:
> but the reason I wanted it is that it is
> part of my "house style" (business cards etc. in same font).

Which seems to me a perfectly good reason for wanting that. Don't mind the
occasional (?) abrasive reply, they're alright in here really, sometimes y'just
need to be a bit thick skinned...

I would love there to be a solution in the way that you're proposing.
So far all I've been able to find is making stuff like that into jpg's, which
isn't a great solution at all.

It really seems to me that there *should* be a way to provide this. Oh well.

Regards
Mark

Re: font type

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Martijn Swart"
writing in
news:4667ec84$0$37726$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:

> I thought it would be unrealistic, but the reason I wanted it is that
> it is part of my "house style" (business cards etc. in same font).
>
>

You could use graphics instead of text for some areas, like a logo. Be
sure that any graphics for text is not essential content. I don't think
most people will be confused because the font is not the same as your
business card.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Re: font type

Martijn Swart wrote:
>> Gain total control over the world and force everyone to install the font
>> on their system.
>
> I would like that, but too time consuming ;o)
>
>> There are also some completely unrealistic ways of trying to achieve it,
>> like WEFT. You could also completely ruin your web site and turn it into a
>> collection of PDF documents with embedded fonts.
>
> I thought it would be unrealistic, but the reason I wanted it is that it is
> part of my "house style" (business cards etc. in same font).
>
> Thanks for answering.

It would be nice but there is no real good way at present of
delivering|embedding fonts within websites. If the font is stylistically
important to your logo, use very judiciously as an image as part of your
logo, slogan, or *maybe* main heading. But be sure to give textual
backup, i.e., meaningful "alt" attributes...




--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: font type

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
news:183g63lojlrs5h96vvqt84n49qhpj58lud@4ax.com...

> What you would like is irrelevant. Are you writing the site for
> yourself or for your visitors? If the latter, then let them decide what
> fonts they prefer.

Hmm, not to start a big debate but that's wrong in a lot of cases.

When you give a business card to someone, the look of that card says
something about you. There's a whole industry and philosophy to image
branding.

Do you hand out plain white business cards with plain black text and some
stickers with graphics, or some pencil crayons, and tell your potential
client "Here, design your own card."? (Actually, that may be the NEXT BIG
TREND. Beck's latest CD came with a roll-your-own case liner. . .)

Just because your advertising medium is the web, doesn't necessarily change
that.

And that's a good thing for web designers. A plain vanilla site with default
black text, white background and simple images using only paragraph tags,
image tags and a few headers is the ultimate "flexible" format. I'm sure
though that you don't build those for clients with the justification "oh, I
like to let the end-user decide their own fonts, layout, etc."

Companies aren't going to pay for that.

The original OP has a valid concern that is, unfortunately, not easily
solvable at this time.

M

Re: font type

M wrote:
>
> When you give a business card to someone, the look of that card says
> something about you. There's a whole industry and philosophy to image
> branding.

Sure, but that doesn't mean you should use some strange font for all the
text on your web page. Go ahead and use that font to make your logo
graphic and a few other special graphics-as-text elements if you must,
but it is unrealistic to go beyond that. Please learn the difference
between web and print media.

And here comes the straw man...

> A plain vanilla site

yawn

--
Berg

Re: font type

"Bergamot" wrote in message
news:5cr7s7F304k1gU1@mid.individual.net...
>M wrote:

> Sure, but that doesn't mean you should use some strange font for all the
> text on your web page.

Hair-splitting aside, I agree with you. The same principle applies for any
advertising medium.

M

Re: font type

In article <183g63lojlrs5h96vvqt84n49qhpj58lud@4ax.com>,
Ed Seedhouse wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 12:39:25 +0200, "Martijn Swart"
> wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >I would like the font of my website to be Bank Gothic. Since that font is
> >not available on every pc, what would be the best way to implement that ?
>
> What you would like is irrelevant. Are you writing the site for
> yourself or for your visitors? If the latter, then let them decide what
> fonts they prefer.
>
> THE WEB IS NOT PAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> If you think you can make it act like paper you are on the road to
> oblivion.

Keep it up Ed, go in real hard from the start, never give a
sucker an even break and all that stuff. But how good is this for
your health? Remember, mate, I am in your kf and I can hear your
stomach churning a lot. If you cark it (Australian expression for
dying) and I am stuck in there... I mean, God help me?

--
dorayme

Re: font type

In article ,
Usenet wrote:

> In article <4667ec84$0$37726$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl>, Martijn Swart
> wrote:
> > but the reason I wanted it is that it is
> > part of my "house style" (business cards etc. in same font).
>
> Which seems to me a perfectly good reason for wanting that. Don't mind the
> occasional (?) abrasive reply, they're alright in here really, sometimes
> y'just
> need to be a bit thick skinned...
>
> I would love there to be a solution in the way that you're proposing.
> So far all I've been able to find is making stuff like that into jpg's, which
> isn't a great solution at all.
>
> It really seems to me that there *should* be a way to provide this. Oh well.
>
> Regards
> Mark

It would be nice to have the power to do this well. As with all
power, it would then be responsibility of the author to use it
wisely. There could be a lot of difficult to read websites that
result! There could also be good uses for this power, namely for
small bits and pieces.

--
dorayme

Re: font type

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:35:14 GMT, "M"
wrote:

>"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
>news:183g63lojlrs5h96vvqt84n49qhpj58lud@4ax.com...
>> What you would like is irrelevant. Are you writing the site for
>> yourself or for your visitors? If the latter, then let them decide what
>> fonts they prefer.

>Hmm, not to start a big debate but that's wrong in a lot of cases.
>When you give a business card to someone, the look of that card says
>something about you. There's a whole industry and philosophy to image
>branding.

A business card is paper. The web is not. It's perfectly possible to
"brand" a web page without making a design for paper.

>Do you hand out plain white business cards with plain black text and some
>stickers with graphics, or some pencil crayons, and tell your potential
>client "Here, design your own card."? (Actually, that may be the NEXT BIG
>TREND. Beck's latest CD came with a roll-your-own case liner. . .)

Of course I suggested nothing like that. The web takes graphic images,
it just doesn't display them in the same way as paper, because it isn't
paper. And we have to work with that fact.

>Just because your advertising medium is the web, doesn't necessarily change
>that.

>And that's a good thing for web designers. A plain vanilla site with default
>black text, white background and simple images using only paragraph tags,
>image tags and a few headers is the ultimate "flexible" format. I'm sure
>though that you don't build those for clients with the justification "oh, I
>like to let the end-user decide their own fonts, layout, etc."

Strawman. False alternatives. Good design is a great thing, style is
nice, creativity is excellent. But the fact remains that the web isn't
paper and there's nothing you can do to make it into paper.

People who are good can create good web pages while still working within
the nature of the web.

All creative endeavours have to be done within restrictions. Working
within rules, real artists produce great results. Read some haiku for
instance. Very strict rules, especially in Japanese, but great artists
nevertheless produce great art within those rigid rules.

>Companies aren't going to pay for that.

Most companies don't understand that the web is not paper. That doesn't
turn the web into paper. And it doesn't make these companies right.

>The original OP has a valid concern that is, unfortunately, not easily
>solvable at this time.

Sorry, I disagree. Failing to take into account the nature of your
medium is a sure way to produce lousy results in any medium. The web is
not paper and it isn't going to be paper, and if you insist on treating
it like paper the result is going to be lousy web sites.

Re: font type

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Ed Seedhouse
writing in news:m9qh63t4g8hbrofqal0l6di6vrobfdki9s@4ax.com:

>>The original OP has a valid concern that is, unfortunately, not easily
>>solvable at this time.
>
> Sorry, I disagree. Failing to take into account the nature of your
> medium is a sure way to produce lousy results in any medium. The web
is
> not paper and it isn't going to be paper, and if you insist on treating
> it like paper the result is going to be lousy web sites.
>

And I agree with you... the web is NOT paper, and the more people
continue to treat is as such, the longer it is going to take it to get to
its full potential.

I look forward to the day that:
1. My computer greets me in the morning with the day's schedule.
2. My refrigerator beeps because I have used to much butter that week (I
will never pay attention to that).
3. I get the news and the newest dirt read to me while I am driving (or
on the bus saving energy)
4. At work, my computer beeps to tell me that my lab results were just
fine, and I don't have to cut down on butter right now.
5. When I go to pick up my son, he tells me that he is in the state
championships in firefighting. He faught against a virtual blaze with
100 other students nationwide. The results were instantaneous, and he
still thinks he feels heat.
6. When I get home, I fire up my gas stove, put on my cast iron skillet
and cook a good meal with plenty of BUTTER.

The point of the above is, almost none of the above, except, of course,
number 6, is possible without computer talking to eachother. Without
good, semantic markup, that just isn't going to happen. It will be like:

"Hey, Joe, how about giving me the information on John Doe. I have all
the credentials available."

""

"Hey, Joe, are you there? Hey, can you speak or what?"

"Table tr td img src td tr table tr td ... "

"What kinda language is that?! Well, gotta go else where."

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Re: font type

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
news:m9qh63t4g8hbrofqal0l6di6vrobfdki9s@4ax.com...

> A business card is paper. The web is not. It's perfectly possible to
> "brand" a web page without making a design for paper.

I agree with you completely.

> Of course I suggested nothing like that. The web takes graphic images,
> it just doesn't display them in the same way as paper, because it isn't
> paper. And we have to work with that fact.

Again, I completely agree.

> Strawman.

?

> But the fact remains that the web isn't
> paper and there's nothing you can do to make it into paper.

No argument from me.

> People who are good can create good web pages while still working within
> the nature of the web.

Absolutely. I'd go even further to say that a good web designer (versus a
web technician)
can create fantastic pages BECAUSE of the nature of the web.

> Very strict rules, especially in Japanese, but great artists
> nevertheless produce great art within those rigid rules.

A haiku composer carefully chooses words to create specific sensory
impressions,
even going so far as to use white space as part of the composition to convey
a mood,
a message, perhaps a bit of universal wisdom.

That's just poor practice.

A good haiku composer should simply toss out 17 syllables on paper
and let the reader compose their own haiku.

That way the reader's enjoyment of the poem isn't hampered by any
preconceived intentions of the composer.
It's the medium that's important, not the message.

>>Companies aren't going to pay for that.
>
> Most companies don't understand that the web is not paper. That doesn't
> turn the web into paper.

I agree.

> if you insist on treating
> it like paper the result is going to be lousy web sites.

You're correct.

See? We're not so far apart after all.

M

Re: font type

M schreef:
>
>> if you insist on treating
>> it like paper the result is going to be lousy web sites.
>
> You're correct.
>
> See? We're not so far apart after all.
>
> M

Then why did you start this stupid "plain white business cards" story?

Nobody was saying that a webpage should have default black text, simple
images and a white background. You made that up and then started
argueing against it.

RW

Re: font type

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:41:31 +0200, Rob Waaijenberg
wrote:


>> See? We're not so far apart after all.
>>
>> M
>
>Then why did you start this stupid "plain white business cards" story?
>
>Nobody was saying that a webpage should have default black text, simple
>images and a white background. You made that up and then started
>argueing against it.

That's pretty much my impression, too.

Re: font type

"Rob Waaijenberg" wrote in message
news:46694e86$0$327$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

> Then why did you start this stupid "plain white business cards" story?
>
> Nobody was saying that a webpage should have default black text, simple
> images and a white background. You made that up and then started argueing
> against it.

You'll have to re-read the post. You missed my point.

M

Re: font type

M wrote:
> "Rob Waaijenberg" wrote in message
> news:46694e86$0$327$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>> Then why did you start this stupid "plain white business cards"
>> story?
>>
>> Nobody was saying that a webpage should have default black text,
>> simple images and a white background. You made that up and then
>> started argueing against it.
>
> You'll have to re-read the post. You missed my point.

That explanation apparently didn't work. Try restating your point.


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: font type

In article <46694e86$0$327$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
Rob Waaijenberg wrote:

> M schreef:
> >
> >> if you insist on treating
> >> it like paper the result is going to be lousy web sites.
> >
> > You're correct.
> >
> > See? We're not so far apart after all.
> >
> > M
>
> Then why did you start this stupid "plain white business cards" story?
>
> Nobody was saying that a webpage should have default black text, simple
> images and a white background. You made that up and then started
> argueing against it.
>

It was at the end of his post, he didn't have time to "start"
arguing "against it". The point of the business cards story was
to say that it would be nice for web authors to have have some
extra weaponry in font choices. It may have been exaggerated a
little for simplicity and to counter the equal exaggerations of
some others here. Mantra minded people love to chant, there are
similarities as well as differences between paper and web. It
would be handy for authors not to be forced to use images of text
every time they make judicious use of logos and other relevant
stylistic touches.

--
dorayme

Re: font type

"dorayme" wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-148165.07504409062007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...

> It was at the end of his post, he didn't have time to "start"
> arguing "against it". The point of the business cards story was
> to say that it would be nice for web authors to have have some
> extra weaponry in font choices.

More or less. My point was about image branding, part of which will include
your on-line presence.

The original OP was attempting to maintain a consistent brand-image across
different mediums.

The whole "web is not paper" thing is something else again. I don't dispute
that. Some people are determined to make it that way though by confusing
lack of design skills with arguments about the need to maintain max
flexibility.

Thx.

M

Re: font type

In article ,
"M" wrote:

> "dorayme" wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-148165.07504409062007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
>
> > It was at the end of his post, he didn't have time to "start"
> > arguing "against it". The point of the business cards story was
> > to say that it would be nice for web authors to have have some
> > extra weaponry in font choices.
>
> More or less. My point was about image branding, part of which will include
> your on-line presence.
>
> The original OP was attempting to maintain a consistent brand-image across
> different mediums.
>
> The whole "web is not paper" thing is something else again. I don't dispute
> that. Some people are determined to make it that way though by confusing
> lack of design skills with arguments about the need to maintain max
> flexibility.

I cannot see that they are confusing these two things. My enemies
have many faults, but I don't think this is one of them. They
just like pushing a message and don't like anything, no matter
how subtle, getting in the way unless it comes from some high
authority, and then it gets to be wooden and simple again and
brought in from the cold into the fundamentalist chanting.

--
dorayme