From: Andreas Prilop on
In <news:ea1nn.15628$pL1.10899(a)uutiset.elisa.fi> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> if you suggest Arial and Geneva as alternatives,
> what makes you think Arial should be favored when both are available?

Geneva has a similar function on Mac OS as Microsoft Sans Serif
has on Windows. However, nobody seems to list Microsoft Sans Serif
in style sheets. Why do so many authors list Geneva?

Both Geneva and Microsoft Sans Serif have only one font/style;
there are no bold or italic fonts. If you apply <B> or <I>,
you will get bolded or slanted letters, not bold or italic fonts.

http://www.user.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp-1.html

A Windows user should get Arial instead of Geneva here;
a Mac user should get Arial instead of Microsoft Sans Serif.
Therefore both can compare faux bold with true bold and
faux italic with true italic. The difference is better seen
printed on paper, not on screen. (Most printer drivers have
an option "Use printer fonts". You must disable this option.)
The same difference exists between Verdana Italic and Tahoma.
As an example, look at the two strokes of the letter "X"
in italic and in faux italic, where one stroke is thinner
than the other.

Many authors specify
font-family: Geneva, Arial, Helvetica /* in any order */
when some bold or italic text actually occurs.
Geneva is not justified here and should be omitted.

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://www.alanflavell.org.uk/charset/
From: David Stone on
In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.1003261755180.8176(a)zen.rrzn.uni-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop <prilop4321(a)trashmail.net> wrote:

> In <news:ea1nn.15628$pL1.10899(a)uutiset.elisa.fi> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
> > if you suggest Arial and Geneva as alternatives,
> > what makes you think Arial should be favored when both are available?
>
> Geneva has a similar function on Mac OS as Microsoft Sans Serif
> has on Windows. However, nobody seems to list Microsoft Sans Serif
> in style sheets. Why do so many authors list Geneva?

Because they've seen the same list of fonts over and over elsewhere?
Inertia? A mistaken belief that this adds "Mac compatibility" to
their web pages?

For example, Dreamweaver CS3 helpfully(?)* provides the following
options via contextual popup menu when setting font-family:

font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-family: Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;

Now that you've gone and mentioned it here, it wouldn't surprise
me to see a future version that includes "Microsoft Sans Serif" !

* This is the same software that STILL uses the html comment escape
around <style>...</style> when placed within the <head>