Or don’t specify any font at all and leave it up to the user’s preference. Why presume you know better than the user?
The users who actually know how to change the default font also know how to use stylish.
Telling him to back off and let you cook because he can't know better than you (his user) would be absurd.
Same thing with design and typography. It requires skill and taste, and hopefully people will be delighted or simply consume the content for what it is, because the design/cooking just reveals that content in a convenient/useful shape.
I think most fonts that get your attention suck, the best ones are invisible and get you directly to the meaning of text, without getting in the way. So maybe there's a kind of bias (selection or sampling bias?) operating here?
These days, people either use their social network’s unchangeable CSS, or they use a Wordpress theme with an attractive and perfectly readable font. Even Merriweather, which I personally don’t care for, is easy enough to read.
The only time I have seen a page use obnoxious fonts in the 2010s is when the LibreSSL webpage used Comic Sans as a joke to highlight that the project could use more money:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140422115234/http://www.libres...
Edit It may be a case that the parent poster likes using a delta hinted font, either Verdana or Georgia, on a low resolution monitor, and doesn’t like the blurry look of an anti-aliased font on a 75dpi screen.
Indeed, typography is a skill. Most designers should have it though, which is why I asked more information to OP.
> The only time I have seen a page use obnoxious fonts in the 2010s is when the LibreSSL webpage used Comic Sans as a joke to highlight that the project could use more money
Ah, the infamous Comic Sans. It's a shame because as a typeface on its own, in its category, it is pretty good. Sadly, it's misused all the time in contexts where it's not appropriate at all.
> It may be a case that the parent poster likes using a delta hinted font, either Verdana or Georgia, on a low resolution monitor, and doesn’t like the blurry look of an anti-aliased font on a 75dpi screen.
Without more details we cannot guess. You're right: a lot of things can go wrong and ruin a typeface, regardless of how the characters are designed. Anti-protip: a reliable way to make any font look like shit is to keep the character drawings as they are and mess up the tracking (letter-spacing) and kerning.
> fonts that get your attention suck
If I can tell the difference between your font and the system default font, your font sucks; if I can't tell the difference, what's the damned point?
The web standards allow a website to use any WOFF (or WOFF2) font they wish to use. Please see https://www.w3.org/TR/css-fonts-3/
[1] There are some rendering issues with Dillo, with made the mistake of trying to support CSS without going all the way, making sure that http://acid2.acidtests.org renders a smiley face, but even here I made sure the site still can be read.
[2] Also, no cookies used on my website. No ads, no third party fonts, no third party javascript, no tracking cookies, nothing. The economic model is that my website helps me get consulting gigs.
[3] I do agree with the general gist of what you’re trying to say: HTML, Javascript, and CSS have become too complicated for anything but the most highly funded of web browsers to render correctly. Both Opera and Microsoft have given up with trying to make a modern standards compliant browser, because the standards are constantly updating.
It doesn't; I only use lynx when someone tricks apt-get into updating part of my graphics stack (xorg, video dirvers, window manager, etc) and researh is needed to figure out how to forcibly downgrade it, and then only because I can't use a proper browser without a working graphics stack.
> the general gist of what you're trying to say: HTML, Javascript, and CSS have become too complicated for anything but the most highly funded of web browsers to render correctly.
This is subtly but critically wrong; I am saying that it is necessary than web browsers do not render websites 'correctly'. The correct behaviour is to actively refuse to let websites specify hideous fonts, snoop on user viewing activity, or execute arbitrary malware on the local machine.
> Browsers with modern CSS support see [...] the serif font for body text.
My point exactly.
Personally, I've been setting my browser to use only DejaVu fonts with a 16pt minimum for years (maybe a decade now) and every time I briefly use a default browser profile I notice the fonts and think not just "this is bad" but "how can people live like this?". Even with the usually minor issues that often appear, setting my own fonts is a way better experience than not doing so. My default experience is much closer to Firefox reader mode than it is to what the page specifies in most cases.
IMO, font speicification should be limited to serif, sans-serif, or monospace and let the user or browser set the actual font. Desingers should not rely on exact sizes of fonts or use custom icon fonts.
For myself, I wish that people would leave Arial, Verdana, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, &c. out of their sans-serif stack, having only their one preferred font and sans-serif, or better still sans-serif alone; but as a developer I understand exactly why they do it all.
font-family: system-ui, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-family: ui-monospaced, Menlo, monospace;