How about using just the good old fashioned simple plain fonts like monospace or Courier New.

After all it's the solution that matters most to Adobe customers

With this site it's 2 steps forward, 2.3 stumbles back.

The inability to change font to one of the prescribed fonts has led us down the path to talking about fonts that do and do not exist for use everywhere (there are fairly few).  Adobe's Typekit (some techonology or other they bought) is supposed to fix that, but it just doesn't work right with the most popular browser.  But no matter.  No doubt Adobe has noticed all this and will be removing the HTML capability soon.

Here's a new phrase we can all use, and that I think we can ALL agree on and stand behind...

Close enough for Adobe work!

-Noel

Jacob Bugge wrote:

 

When you write your posts, normally or in the advanced editor, you see the default font in your browser.

No, that is something different again.  At least for me; in the editor I see the ugliest font every invented.  It looks like an old-fashioned dot-printer.

This is how it looks using Waterfox on Windows 7.  Using Firefox on Windows XP is even uglier!  I will post an image of that tomorrow...

Pat Willener wrote:

 

This is how it looks using Waterfox on Windows 7.  Using Firefox on Windows XP is even uglier!  I will post an image of that tomorrow...

Not so bad...

Wonder what default and advanced font settings you have in Firefox/WinXP?

The point is this:  Why should it be different from one user's system to another?

• Intentional randomization just for the excitement of it all?
• A "fresh" user experience every visit?
• Adobe wants to convey the message that they really don't understand web content creation?
• Avoidance of that awful deja-vu feeling?
• Completely incompetent web programmers?

Sure is a good thing President Obama appointed the CEO of Adobe as a member of his Management Advisory Board on productivity, the application of technology, and customer service.

-Noel

Noel,

Thanks for that. I needed a good laugh this AM.

Hunt

Yes, the "good thing" part could be interpreted as a joke.  The rest of the post is true enough.

I know you're loathe to use your browser zoom, but give it a try some time, even if for just reading one sentence.  That said, I'm resisting using anything but 100% zoom at every turn myself.

-Noel

I just discovered another quirk in the font(s) chosen here.

This is a technical forum, right?  Someone might want to express a checkbox as:

[  ] Check this box for good things to happen

Look carefully at the square brackets there.  Do they look the same height to you?  Look closely.  Here, I'll grab the screen and magnify them for you:

Who designed this?  Stevie Wonder? 

-Noel

They're the same height for me. Your screenshot magnification smacks of bad subpixel rendering (check out those colors!). that may have something to do with your problem...

Thanks for your response, John.  I'm glad to hear it's not broken for everyone.

For me It looks the same in IE9, Firefox, and Safari.

There is no problem with my rendering.  There is a problem with the font.  That it is being used with Windows systems rendering like this indicates Adobe either doesn't actually test this stuff, of doesn't care.

By the way, those ClearType colors are there precisely to aid with subpixel rendering, and they help make the text look finer and BETTER, as I have ClearType tuned for my particular displays and preferences.  You're missing out on a particularly clear display if you don't have them.

It looks the same in IE9, Firefox, and Safari, by the way.

-Noel

I realize ClearType is subtle, and it's easy to point fingers at things like the color precompensation (especially when you don't have it or haven't experienced it), but I thought you'd like to see a macro photo of how it actually works when seen on the monitor.  It essentially provides additional horizontal resolution, making the monitor more like an effective 300 x 100 ppi with regard to text rendering.

In fact, without it finely-rendered characters actually look MORE color-fringed.

-Noel

I also wonder how this happened:

in this topic http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1074419 ?

Just hit Reply, Quote, and turn on the HTML editor:

<object height="0" id="plugin0" style="position: absolute; z-index: 1000;" type="application/x-dgnria" width="0">

That's all it takes.

Yes, I saw that object, but how did that user got it in there...?