Hi,
I am looking for a font that will work with IE and Firefox that is
Cursive. Script doesn't work in both, neither does Lucinda
Handwriting. This is for a wedding website so I am looking for
something elegant.
Thanks,
Shannon
scmulqueen@netzero.com wrote:
> Hi,
You should stick to your existing thread...
> I am looking for a font that will work with IE and Firefox that is
> Cursive. Script doesn't work in both, neither does Lucinda
> Handwriting. This is for a wedding website so I am looking for
> something elegant.
As you will have no idea what browser, operating system, or font
installation any of your visitors will have/be using, there is no way
you could pick any "specialty" font and expect success. You can
"suggest" fonts, but if the visitors do not have them installed, their
browsers will substitute something else, something they "think" might be
a replacement. It is a crap shoot.
I guess you saw my screen shot... here's another, using the OffByOne
browser:
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/merideth-obo.jpg
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
scmulqueen@netzero.com wrote:
> Hi,
> I am looking for a font that will work with IE and Firefox that is
> Cursive. Script doesn't work in both, neither does Lucinda
> Handwriting. This is for a wedding website so I am looking for
> something elegant.
> Thanks,
> Shannon
>
Queen:
The best method to get cursive fonts is as follows:
1) Don't use cursive fonts everywhere (they are usually hard to read).
2) For headings, like h1 elements etc, use
scmulqueen@netzero.com wrote:
>
> I am looking for a font that will work with IE and Firefox
There is no relationship between fonts and browsers.
Fonts are installed on your visitor's box (PC, PDA, whatever). It
doesn't matter what browser they use; all should give the same results
*on that box*. Somebody else's box will likely have different fonts
installed.
> that is Cursive.
I don't know of any cursive font that commonly installed on Windows and
Mac, let alone Linux or any other OS you can think of. Even different
versions of any given OS may well have different fonts.
> Script doesn't work in both, neither does Lucinda
> Handwriting.
Define "doesn't work". Or are you looking at it from 2 different PCs?
> This is for a wedding website so I am looking for
> something elegant.
Cursive fonts can be tolerable on screen in very small quantities and
enlarged type sizes, like headings, but they can be hell to read for
body text. Leave paragraph text plain serif or sans-serif if you want
people to be able to actually read it and use a fancier font just for
headings. Use graphics for headings if you must, but make sure you use
appropriate alt text.
BTW, I don't think Lucida Handwriting is particularly elegant. Lucida
Calligraphy would be more so.
--
Berg
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:50:11 -0700, scmulqueen wrote:
> I am looking for a font that will work with IE and Firefox that is
> Cursive. Script doesn't work in both, neither does Lucinda
> Handwriting. This is for a wedding website so I am looking for
> something elegant.
Well, you can specify more than one font, and the first one that's
available will be used. So you can specify both Script and Lucida
Handwriting, and other alternatives too:
font-family: Script, "Ludica Calligraphy", "Lucida Handwriting", cursive;
Note the "cursive" at the end there - that's a generic font family,
specified by CSS; if the browser can't find any of the specific fonts you
specify, "cursive" asks it to use whatever cursive font it has available.
In article
<1185385811.000868.35130@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
scmulqueen@netzero.com wrote:
> Hi,
> I am looking for a font that will work with IE and Firefox that is
> Cursive. Script doesn't work in both, neither does Lucinda
> Handwriting. This is for a wedding website so I am looking for
> something elegant.
> Thanks,
> Shannon
I know you want to be all weddingy but consider not being too
fussy with fonts, it is difficult in websites to be wanting too
much on this score. You can specify font-family: cursive; if you
want and leave it to the user's browser to use the font that,
formally speaking, is the user's choice for cursive fonts.
Consider also simply using Arial or a standard easily readable
font and bring in the dewy eyed stuff in the graphics, the easy
readability of such being a statement of sensibleness in a sea of
giddiness, an important element in a solid marriage.
--
dorayme
Animesh K wrote:
>
> #cursive_text_1{
> background: url(cursive_text_1_image_file) no-repeat;
> display: none;
> }
>
> PS: This method is followed in ZenGarden's website and degrades
> gracefully when stylesheet is disabled, have a look here:
>
> http://csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/197/197.css&page=0
FYI zengarden isn't exactly the epitome of good design.
You might want to try that URL again with image loading disabled. It
degrades rather less well than you think.
All image replacement methods have problems. Best not to use them, but
stick with foreground images and applicable alt text.
--
Berg
Bergamot wrote:
> Animesh K wrote:
>> #cursive_text_1{
>> background: url(cursive_text_1_image_file) no-repeat;
>> display: none;
>> }
>>
>> PS: This method is followed in ZenGarden's website and degrades
>> gracefully when stylesheet is disabled, have a look here:
>>
>> http://csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/197/197.css&page=0
>
> FYI zengarden isn't exactly the epitome of good design.
>
> You might want to try that URL again with image loading disabled. It
> degrades rather less well than you think.
>
> All image replacement methods have problems. Best not to use them, but
> stick with foreground images and applicable alt text.
>
I mentioned graceful degradation wrt the CSS file.
I am assuming her friends will visit the wedding site and they will not
reach the website to show "what is not working" but to enjoy some nice
text-n-images related to the wedding. She isn't trying to make the next
w3.org.
Animesh K wrote:
> Bergamot wrote:
>>
>> All image replacement methods have problems. Best not to use them, but
>> stick with foreground images and applicable alt text.
>
> I am assuming her friends will visit the wedding site and they will not
> reach the website to show "what is not working" but to enjoy some nice
> text-n-images related to the wedding. She isn't trying to make the next
> w3.org.
Funny, I was thinking more or less the same thing. :)
In the OP's case, it is really a waste of time to use any image
replacement method, not just specifically the one employed by zengarden.
They were developed specifically for search engine optimizations and are
unnecessary here. Foreground images with suitable alt text are all she
should need, and are much simpler to implement.
--
Berg
Bergamot wrote:
> Animesh K wrote:
>> Bergamot wrote:
>>> All image replacement methods have problems. Best not to use them, but
>>> stick with foreground images and applicable alt text.
>> I am assuming her friends will visit the wedding site and they will not
>> reach the website to show "what is not working" but to enjoy some nice
>> text-n-images related to the wedding. She isn't trying to make the next
>> w3.org.
>
> Funny, I was thinking more or less the same thing. :)
>
> In the OP's case, it is really a waste of time to use any image
> replacement method, not just specifically the one employed by zengarden.
> They were developed specifically for search engine optimizations and are
> unnecessary here. Foreground images with suitable alt text are all she
> should need, and are much simpler to implement.
>
Yes the foreground image method should be fine too (and in fact easier
to implement).