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):
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.
Graphic & Web Designer