| Layout Font Limitations |
|
Forum Index - Important - Announcements - Layout Font Limitations |
|
|
|
|
| Posted on 2011-08-23 11:10:01 AM |
Link | Quote |
|
|
Wow I derped. I meant to quote Ulti but I quoted you somehow. I think I must have written that in my sleep :/
|
|
| Posted on 2011-08-23 08:19:42 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
|
Yeah I don't see the font in Firefox 7.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-08-24 11:46:03 AM |
Link | Quote |
|
|
That's a known problem, Firefox 7 only shows fonts imported with @font-face if the font is hosted on the same server/domain (not sure) as the site it's used on, which is impossible to do for layouts.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-08-24 12:14:50 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
|
um... what about smwc bin files? Couldn't you just upload the font there?
|
|
| Posted on 2011-08-24 12:31:41 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
bin.smwcentral.net
www.smwcentral.net
spot the difference
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-24 03:53:43 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
|
I know this is a bit of A bump, sorry about that, but would It be alright For me to use This Font?
|
| Last edited on 2011-11-24 03:54:01 PM by Mrgoomba909. |
|
| Posted on 2011-11-24 04:41:42 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
Originally posted by Mrgoomba909I know this is a bit of A bump, sorry about that, but would It be alright For me to use This Font?
Any reason it has to be specifically that? It looks like any other sans-serif font? Why not use one already on the list?
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-24 04:46:54 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
For the special touch.
Something you will never understand! /wrists
(Seriously, if you can't see a big difference between that font and the others on the allowed list, I will be surprised)
Watch how I skillfully fuck up the PP.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-26 07:44:27 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
Originally posted by leodFor the special touch.
Something you will never understand! /wrists
(Seriously, if you can't see a big difference between that font and the others on the allowed list, I will be surprised)
Watch how I skillfully fuck up the PP.
(There is a much easier way to fuck up the PP.
Anyway, are people just being cautious or is it required to ask about fonts not on the list in this thread?)
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-27 09:58:07 AM |
Link | Quote |
|
|
It's required.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-27 02:31:41 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
|
Well, to be honest, we probably won't find out or care if the font is easily readable. The point of this initiative was to get people to stop using horrible, illegible fonts.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-27 08:00:29 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
Agree. Because some fonts are either too inclined, or too unreadable.
One example is BrushScrD.
Kartika is way too small.
The "Script" font is completely unreadable, in my opinion.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-28 06:28:25 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
|
Actually here's a question. Why are monospaced fonts disallowed? They're perfectly legible.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-29 12:41:13 AM |
Link | Quote |
|
Because they're not made for reading huge paragraphs of actual text and can become really annoying, because I keep skipping/repeating lines (mid-sentence) without noticing due to all having the same width, in my experience.
Also they probably take up a lot more space, because even those tiny l's and i's suddenly are as wide as a B.
That would be the only reasons I could come up with.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-29 12:10:28 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
I always prefer monospaced fonts, as they tend to (for me) makes things actually easier to read (though that's possibly just because I always use a monospaced font for everything, so I may just be used to it). Plus (and this is weird) it makes me happy that all the letters take up the same amount of space. They do take up more space, though.
I always prefer monospaced fonts, as they tend to (for me) makes things actually easier to read (though that's possibly just because I always use a monospaced font for everything, so I may just be used to it). Plus (and this is weird) it makes me happy that all the letters take up the same amount of space. They do take up more space, though.
That said, I haven't used a layout in a while anyways, and at least code boxes use a monospaced font.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-29 12:18:53 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
Originally posted by HuFlungDu[A]t least code boxes use a monospaced font.
I didn't check all the schemes, but I checked four, and none of them has monospace code boxes, they all use Tahoma.
It seems that the only one that does use a monospaced font is the Default site scheme, and I guess that should be fixed?
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-29 02:45:29 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
|
Huh, I've always used the default site scheme, but apparently other schemes do use Tahoma in the code boxes. That should be fixed (As in; other schemes should also use a monospaced font. Can you imagine if you were to try to code in word? That's what that looks like).
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-29 06:05:54 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
|
If there's no real reason to disallow monospaced fonts, I propose the userbase be allowed to vote on whether or not they should be acceptable in layouts.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-29 06:40:46 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
|
I'm against monospaced fonts used as a main font for layouts. Testing out the theory of them being harder to read by looking at HuFlungDu's post, for me it's easier to skim through the second part while still taking in the content whereas the monospaced paragraph takes more time for me and I can't really glance ahead and quickly read.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-29 09:33:03 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
|
Monospaced fonts don't bother me that much, although I do think variable-width is a little easier to read. For code, on the other hand, I think it would make more sense for the opposite of the rule to be true; it's easier for me to understand it when the characters all line up. I was thinking of asking if I could use a monospaced font for my code boxes when I finish my layout.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Index - Important - Announcements - Layout Font Limitations |
