User Experience Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for user experience researchers and experts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

So Verdana looks excellent at small sizes. For big sizes like headlines though, is it common to use Tahoma as a replacement, which I hear is a condensed version of Verdana?

share|improve this question

closed as off topic by JohnGB, Ben Brocka, dnbrv, DA01, Matt Rockwell Feb 28 '12 at 20:06

Questions on User Experience Stack Exchange are expected to relate to user experience within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Tahoma is not a condensed version of Verdana. They were both designed by Matthew Carter, though. And yes, it's a fine header companion to Verdana. Use it if you like it. – DA01 Feb 28 '12 at 20:02
@DA01 Tahoma is a version of verdana designed for use in thr Windows UI. It is not part of the core web fonts and thus is not widely available on other platforms. – kinokijuf Jan 31 '13 at 11:35
@kinokijuf while they are similar, they really aren't two versions of the same family. Just as Arial and Helvetica, while similar, aren't two versions of the same family. I believe Tahoma shipped (ships?) with MS Office, so lots of people will have it. Obviously, be sure to have a secondary typeface spec'd as well (such as Verdana). – DA01 Jan 31 '13 at 16:33
@DA01 Tahoma design was very obviosly based on Verdana, while Arial is only metric-compatible with Helvetica. – kinokijuf Jan 31 '13 at 17:30
@kinokijuf at this point, we're debating semantics. Verdana and Tahoma were released at the same time, by the same designer, for the same operating system. If some want to call that a 'version of' then I don't think I can argue that on a technical level. Personally, the differences between the two are significant enough that I think most would consider them related in their roots--but definitely two distinct typefaces. – DA01 Jan 31 '13 at 17:40