Which font do you like best?

I am trying to start playing with CSS a little bit. For my brand new
lesson writing system, which font do you like best:

this

http://dsl.algebra.com/tutors/quadra...tion=show_prod

or this:

http://www.algebra.com/tutors/quadra...tion=show_prod

Thanks!

i

"Ignoramus11475" <ignoramus11475@NOSPAM.11475.invalid> wrote in message
news:d72n6t$c0t$0@pita.alt.net...

> I see way to many shortcomings to be happy about my website,
> although, hopefully, I am moving in a good direction.

The three key things for a succesful website are Content ... Content ... and
Content.

You've got great content for the audience you are aiming at, don't try to
over-embellish it, keep it simple and don't worry about fonts as long as you
don't use something ridiculous.

Sam is quite right, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, people here will
be looking at your site from a web designers point of view, the kids using
it won't give s**t about aesthetics, it's the answers they will be after.

Ignoramus11475 wrote:

> Ah, thank you guys, I honesty feel that I do not deserve the
> compliment, I am not tryin got be cute.

Google is not trying to be cute either ;-). I even get the impression that
the maker of BitTorrent, was not trying to be cute, or is no longer trying
too :-)

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

On Wed, 25 May 2005 23:48:49 +0100, Martin Harran <nospam@martinharran.com> wrote:
>
> "Ignoramus11475" <ignoramus11475@NOSPAM.11475.invalid> wrote in message
> news:d72n6t$c0t$0@pita.alt.net...
>
>> I see way to many shortcomings to be happy about my website,
>> although, hopefully, I am moving in a good direction.
>
> The three key things for a succesful website are Content ... Content ... and
> Content.
>
> You've got great content for the audience you are aiming at, don't try to
> over-embellish it, keep it simple and don't worry about fonts as long as you
> don't use something ridiculous.
>
> Sam is quite right, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, people here will
> be looking at your site from a web designers point of view, the kids using
> it won't give s**t about aesthetics, it's the answers they will be after.

Thanks for the voice of common sense. I like to think in the same
direction, although from time to tim I try to do cutesy things.

i

Martin Harran wrote:
> "SpaceGirl" <NOtheSpacegirlSPAM@subhuman.net> wrote in message
> news:3flj4tF8flvdU1@individual.net...
>
>
>> If Amazon.com was a god-awful pink site with red text, would it be so
>>popular?
>
>
> Quite possibly
>
> IMO, what would kill it more quickly as a site would be if it was very
> difficult to navigate or if it was very slow with a lot of timeouts when
> searching.
>
>

Yep. But the layout of menus, and "traditional" navigation is as much
aesthetics as functional design. You can pack everything needed onto a
page, and even if it works it may fail your customers simply because it
doesn't look good. A better looking competitors site may win out. And
when I say "better looking", that doesn't mean "sexier"; It could mean
more simple, better colour use, cleaner layout... with exactly the same
functionality. Aesthetics are *really* important.

Martin Harran wrote

> IMO, what would kill it more quickly as a site would be if it was very
> difficult to navigate or if it was very slow with a lot of timeouts when
> searching.

Or a long Flash intro!

--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com

"SpaceGirl" <NOtheSpacegirlSPAM@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:3flnh5F8diqrU1@individual.net...
> Martin Harran wrote:
>> "SpaceGirl" <NOtheSpacegirlSPAM@subhuman.net> wrote in message
>> news:3flj4tF8flvdU1@individual.net...

> Yep. But the layout of menus, and "traditional" navigation is as much
> aesthetics as functional design. You can pack everything needed onto a
> page, and even if it works it may fail your customers simply because it
> doesn't look good. A better looking competitors site may win out. And when
> I say "better looking", that doesn't mean "sexier"; It could mean more
> simple, better colour use, cleaner layout... with exactly the same
> functionality. Aesthetics are *really* important.

I think that in regard to 'functional' sites i.e. those where someone
specifically wants to do something like make a purchase or get an answer to
a specific question, aesthetics have a negative contribution* - if they are
really bad they will put people off, but being really good will not give the
site any competitive advantage.

When was the last time you heard someone praising the aesthetics of Amazon
or Google?


* Just to wander off topic ever so slightly, this reminds me of Frederick
Herzberg's theories on motivation, very popular in the 60's and 70's, where
he described pay, for example, as a 'dissatisfier' - bad pay will
demotivate a person but good pay will not necessarily motivate them. IMHO
the same principle applies to aesthetics in web design.