On 04/06/10 02:12 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote: > On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 14:07 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > >> Speaking only for my tastes, this font seems more excentric than >> Modata. The wider spacing could have a negative impact on content >> where we can effectively use Modata now -- having to use a lot more >> space for the same amount of information. I'm not saying we want a >> tightly condensed font, but Quicksand seems skewed too far in the >> other direction. >> > I totally agree with the wide spacing impacting the amount of space > needed in documents. To be fair though, the secondary font really should > be used for titling type of stuff only - signage, headings, that kind of > thing. I don't think Modata is a great body text font. E.g. here's an > example of a brand book using VAG where it's strictly set as headline > type and not meant for body type (which == Modata, long story short VAG > was public domained and Modata is a derivative): > > http://www.arcelormittal.tv/healthandsafety/files/Documents/graphical/graphical_guideline_HS.pdf > > > We don't actually have an official body text font (I tend to use > Liberation Sans when laying out body text), maybe we should pick a > specific one and add it to our brand guidelines. > Gnu Free Sans seems suitable for body text. It is very close to Helvetica and better than Liberation Sans IMO. -- Luya Tshimbalanga Graphic & Web Designer E: luya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx W: http://www.thefinalzone.net _______________________________________________ design-team mailing list design-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/design-team
