There are a lot of fonts out there… A LOT. Relatively few of them, however, are considered “web safe”, because users have to have the font installed on their machine to have it display right. Many fonts come bundled with operating systems, and sometimes, web browsers. They all have their pros and cons, but there are some that, in my opinion, should be avoided in favor of other alternatives.

Serif Fonts

Serif fonts get their name from the little “extras” on the letters; the tails and the other decorations ending the letters’ strokes.

The typical default font you see around is Times New Roman. Now, there’s nothing wrong with this font, or any of them for that matter. The biggest problem I have with this font is its overuse. If you open up a new document in Microsoft Word, Times New Roman is the font you start typing with. Many people don’t change this, so most printed items you see have Times New Roman. Usually if you see things repeatedly, you will get sick of them, no matter how good they look. So to me, nothing says “I put almost no thought into this design” than sticking with the default serif font in most web browsers. (more…)

Browsing around the internet for what seems like forever (StumbleUpon and digg are virtual crack), I’ve noticed something with the “Web 2.0″ design schemes… we’re going back to the 80’s.

Take color for example: look at most “web 2.0″ websites or logos. Go ahead, take a look. What do most of the colors have in common? They’re bright, they’re bold, they’re NEON. That’s right, the internet is now clad in DayGlo.

Not that the colors are all that bad. The internet has finally become a place where good design is more important than fancy stuff, and color is included. The colors are bright and eye-catching, but they’re not overpowering. Just a few years ago, everyone had a “look what I can do” attitude on the internet, and it produced some nauseating results. I’ll be happy if I never see another <blink> tag again.

Typography has become important on the web too. Most of the logos you see are focused around text, and text is what people see the most when they visit a website. So it has to look good. I’m glad the days of Comic Sans are almost over, although I still see it used (badly) from time to time. Both the 80s and Web 2.0 used a bunch of sans-serif fonts. The biggest difference I can see is that Web 2.0 likes to use rounded edges, soft shadows, and subtle reflections, while the 80’s used alot of sharp edges and radical angles. So I guess the 80’s are returning, but in a softer, gentler kind of way.

Web 2.0 has also had a couple of serious “stick-it-to-the-man” moments, most recently the digg story of the HD-DVD Hex Code. The 80’s were also a time of angst and rebellion, especially with the rising of the punk scene. I guess this isn’t the greatest of comparisons, but it’s a comparison nonetheless.

My final bit really has nothing to do with Web 2.0 at all, but it does have something to do with a comparison between 1980’s design and today’s design: the London 2012 Olympic logo. This is probably the worst design decision to happen to the Olympics (and Atlanta had Izzy, the blue… uh… thing.), but it totally screams “1980’s!” Further proof that we’re almost done wearing the bell-bottoms of the 60’s and 70’s and have moved on to copying the next decade.

So in short, we’re copying the 80’s. I can’t wait for Knight Rider to come back.