[bookman156]

Arrogant is a bit strong, but pale grey text on white or dark grey on black is stupid.

Couldn't agree with you more there.

I started using webfonts to supply specialist glyphs, but once I'd done that and seen how well it works I just thought, hang on, why rely on uncertain system fonts any more for the rest of it as well.

Also the default fonts on most systems are not that bad now compared with 1994.

Apart from Constantia, Corbel, Candara, and Calibri on Windows machines, which aren't actually specified much, it is still pretty much Verdana, Arial, Times New Roman and Georgia. The last one isn't a bad font, and Verdana's not bad either, but they're tired out after two decades of using them. The reason many websites don't use better fonts is because they haven't found out how to, because they use templates. I design from scratch, 'hand-roll' as it used to be known, before automation in website production became the norm and hardly anyone knew anything about web design any more, despite having a 'professional looking' website that is just a template.

So even if using embedded fonts in an ebook or server fonts on a web page I make sure the ebook still works on an app or reader that either doesn't support embedded fonts at all, or might have that turned off. I'll check a webpage with bits blocked by uMatrix that it is still readable and mostly works.

I agree, that is only sensible.

Sites that give a blank page unless 3rd party scripts are enabled are nasty and 3rd party scripts are a security risk; they have been used on CNN and BBC to serve malware.

I also design sites without any JavaScript use at all. Most sites are overburdened with it and will often appear as a blank page to those using the NoScript plugin for security and privacy. Not a good look for an international organisation.