best web font?

Hi All

I recently changed my font from Tahoma to Sans Serif.... i love the sans serif, but my sister has a MAC and it goes crazy on her computer.

any suggestions on good webfonts/

thanks

 

[fisicx]

Eh?

Sans-serif isn't a font. Serif fonts have the little feet on the letters, sans-serif don't. That's the only difference.

Serif fonts include: Courier and Times New Roman.
Sans-serif fonts include: Arial, Helvetica, Tahoma and Verdana.

Stick with these and you should be ok.

If it's all gone pear shaped on her MAC then it may be that your header code is calling the wrong charcater set or more likley, you are using a font installed on your PC that she doesn't have.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

any suggestions on good webfonts/

For body copy, use Arial. It's the best.

For headlines, there are lots of good options - e.g. Tahoma, Georgia, Verdana.

Cheers,

Steve

 

[Pete Crane]

Is there any data surrounding this. Aesthetically I prefer Arial across the range but that's just personal opinion - which means jack when it comes to conversion rates - so I'd be interested to see any info on fonts in action for titles etc.

If there isn't then no problem, might do a trial on it myself in any case.

 

[iArtist]

This blog post I wrote may help

How to write web content and sell more getting it right




.

 

[iArtist]

Is there any data surrounding this. Aesthetically I prefer Arial across the range but that's just personal opinion - which means jack when it comes to conversion rates - so I'd be interested to see any info on fonts in action for titles etc.
.

yes

http://www.wilsonweb.com/wmt6/html-email-fonts.htm




.

 

arial it is. many thanks

 

[fisicx]

yes

http://www.wilsonweb.com/wmt6/html-email-fonts.htm

As I said in another post, this is a very old survey and not entierly relevant. Point sizes are not reccomended as they are a typographical measure used in printing (1pt = about 1/72"). Pixel sizes aren't much better as they can get very small on a high res screen.

The best font size is 1em or 100%. You then relate all other elements to this base font size. Example base font size 1em (default), h1 200%, h2 150% and so on.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Is there any data surrounding this.

There have been a number of studies on readability that put Arial 12pt first.

However, the studies on fonts v conversion have shown that improving readability can lower conversion rates.

One theory is that most web copy is so bad, it's better if prospects don't read too much of it!

Steve

 

[MrsPWN]

Think I am going to use Georgia on mine, with Tahoma as a close 2nd.

 

[Colin Parker]

As always the simple answer is to test.

Fonts and sizes which may work in one market may not work as well in another. I would stick to arial and verdana in body text (min 10pt) to start with simply because they are probably the best fonts for the majority of sites.

Also, I try never to use the word 'think' about what will or will not work on a site and always use the word 'test'.

If you 'think' something looks good and you get a reasonable conversion the danger is that you don't split test the result against a font (or picture, or colour, or .... ) that you 'think' does not look as good. And that could mean your conversion stagnates at a lower level than you could actually achieve.

On the wider subject of website conversion in general I have been predicting for the past 2/3 years that expert knowledge and skill in this area will become as much in demand as the talents of the top SEO's.

Colin Parker

 

[fisicx]

On the wider subject of website conversion in general I have been predicting for the past 2/3 years that expert knowledge and skill in this area will become as much in demand as the talents of the top SEO's.

100% in agreement here. One of the major design forums I frequent in the USA puts usability and accessibility way, way above SEO, SEM and any other marketing tool (including copywriting).

 

[directmarketingadvice]

On the wider subject of website conversion in general I have been predicting for the past 2/3 years that expert knowledge and skill in this area will become as much in demand as the talents of the top SEO's.

If the world were a logical place, you'd be right. But, unfortunately, I think you'll turn out to be wrong.

I raised this question with Drayton Bird on his blog:

Gibbo: "If I propose something that'll get them 10% more traffic, they jump at it.

But, suggest getting 10% more out of their existing traffic and they either think it's voodoo or too much like hard work (even when I show them examples and offer guarantees).

I'm wondering, is this normal?

Do you find that it's easier to sell clients on brand new advertising than it is to sell them on a re-write of their existing copy?"

Drayton: "The answers are "yes" and "yes".

This is even though it is always more sensible to try and improve something that's working than strike off in an entirely new direction - and even though you'll make more out of improving your approach to people you've got than people you're just acquiring.

I think people prefer to test new creative and on getting new traffic rather than making more from what they've got because of the human preference for the new. I often used to say at seminars when people asked me about this new thing and that new thing, "Why don't you try and get the basics right first?""

Steve

 

[Colin Parker]

If you have any doubts about the worth of testing fonts, font size or anything else on your site take a look at the figures below ...

I am assuming a PPC campaign purely because it is easier to demonstrate the visitor cost (CPC - cost per click) to your site.

I am assuming a CPC of £1 and a profit per sale of £100.


CPC £1 £1 £1

Clicks 100 100 100

Cost £100 £100 £100

Conversion 1% 2% 3%

Sales 1 2 3

Income £100 £200 £300

Profit NIL £100 £200


In other words ... a 1% increase in conversion can turn your site from 'zero to hero' ... and the next 1% increase can double your profit!

That 1% increase just might be down to font and font size ... or it may be found by testing a headline, a picture, a colour etc., etc.

There is a saying known to all golfers ... drive for show, put for dough.

For site owners read ... traffic for show, conversion for dough.

Colin Parker

 

[Colin Parker]

If the world were a logical place, you'd be right. But, unfortunately, I think you'll turn out to be wrong. Steve

20% of all websites get 80% of the business in their market.

And 20% of that 20% get 80% of that 80% (if you see what I mean!).

So ... I would agree that for 80% of site owners website conversion will not be the most sought after skill. But for the other 20% - and especially the 20% of that 20% - it is now or soon will be.

The relevant demands for traffic and conversion reminds me of the race for powered flight. Nearly every other budding aviation company concentrated on building an engine powerful enough to make a heavier than air object fly.

The Wright brothers concentrated on getting a heavier than air object to fly without an engine ie., to glide first ... and then added an engine to make it fly better. The rest is history.

For object ... read website. For engine ... read traffic. And for glide ... read conversion.

The fact that most (80%) of website owners prefer to pile more traffic to a poorly converting site is IMO irrelevant to the argument. Because the other 20% (and espicially the big national/international companies who now more than ever realise the power of the internet) are increasingly realising the importance of website conversion. And looking for experts to help them!

Colin Parker