6 ms·

Including Verdana is a mistake. It's only in there because it looks OK on current low resolution screens. When retina-style displays are ubiquitous it's just go

Including Verdana is a mistake. It's only in there because it looks OK on current low resolution screens. When retina-style displays are ubiquitous it's just going to be puzzling to people that it's keeping such good company. EDIT: OK, I've RTFA now and I see their point (it's a historical curiosity). It still think it's too boring to be in the list, but it does make some sense.

pasbesoin 16y ago
For anybody who was doing extensive reading off the screen around that time, Verdana was a blessing. Pages set in Verdana were often markedly more legible than their counterparts. "Boring" wasn't a factor. Eyestrain was. A lot of people still get this wrong. I have several bookmarklets in the browser toolbar to whack bad font choices (as well, color choices and leading) on pages I'm interested in actually, you know, reading. In this sense, Verdana deserves the kudos. As well, MS, for making it freely available. (I didn't even read about any chairs being thrown.) P.S. I like its contemporary sibling, Georgia, as well. Similar design goals, in a serif format. Here's one article I seem to recall from several years ago, though I haven't reread the whole thing just now: http://www.will-harris.com/verdana-georgia.htm http://www.will-harris.com/verdana-georgia.htm