Web Typography
Have to admit, it’s not one of my better skill-sets, working with typography. Not unlike many who came before, I learned – the hard way – that too many type faces ruins the soup. Then, too, there’s the problem wherein I get “wedded” to a certain common element, in this example, it’s part of the backend of this place, the WordPress Theme.
This theme, it’s really a theme framework, advertises “Golden Ratio” font elements. This blog, as always, is the experimental outlet for working on what displays best. What’s aesthetically pleasing, what works, and some days, what doesn’t work. What’s more successful and what’s less successful. I would write, “Successes and failures,” but with the web’s highly fluid media, I can hardly call them failures. Fix what does not look right? Move on.
I really like these elements, and I got a chance to toy around with typeface, settling on a single family – for now – that isn’t the most readable, but carries a certain feel of gravitas that appeals to me. Since this is a strict weblog, nothing more, with no set length required, the font that looks good in short entries is also employed in the longer screeds.
Briefly, I was using the “single column” layout, and I would like to stick with that, but I need two buttons, off to one side, an Amazon link and uppermost? A search field. While I’m not totally set on every square centimeter being adjusted the way I like it, overall, the look and feel, the fit and finish? It works for now.
When I first stared building web pages, it was possible to “call” certain fonts, basically, serif or san-serif, and size, then weight. Weight was just “regular” or “bold.” Web typography has since graduated. The front of astrofish.net uses one font, all the way through, I think. This is a combination of form, function, style, and lack of intrusion. It’s a conscious decision I made. For now, I picked the most universal font I could find, available in a huge variety, and part of just about every computer’s operating system. Simple, effective enough, and best of all, with near universal installation and acceptance? Fast. Quick to render. Can render on a tiny phone’s screen, all the way up to super-wide, theater-style screen.
With this web-journal, the focus is merely the words. In a similar vein, with the ubiquitous side-project, the only focus is the images. A single, new image every day. That blog, the phot-blog side-project, those visual elements are wrapped in the same WordPress Theme framework, ‘skinned’ in a different fashion. This is merely about the most effective way to display information, visual and otherwise.
Web Typography
While I frequently refer to WordPress Themes as “Window dressings,” the themes themselves are no more just web-stylings. When it comes to style?
To cite the masters, “Omit needless words.”
With visual web-styling? Less is more?
And with typography? I’m always open to suggestions. Got to admit though, I go with what strikes a happy balance between what I like, what works, and what’s easiest.
While not entirely pleased with what I’ve arrived at, I adore the abilty to mess around and try new designs.
This current iteration is using a font-family called, if I recall, “Libra.” It comes in several weights and with various versions, some with serif, some without. I think I put san-serif for headlines, and while not happy, it’s will do because there’s a coherent flavor throughout. The serif body-text, I do like that, as it reminds me of the older type-set fonts. A little heavy, but with adequate white space, I’ve found it quite aesthetically pleasing and I’m able to scan the lines quickly. That’s what Web Typography should be about – ease of use.
The coolest trick I know for testing? Go in an Apple Store and look at a website on the latest, greatest, Retina-big-Screen. Best test I know.
(WP Theme endorsement)
