Difference between revisions of "Template:Publication Result Format Header"

From Planteome Annotation Wiki - Test
Jump to: navigation, search
m (1 revision: Added Trait Ontology feature (and TO autocomplete web service) and outlinks for ontology terms and PubMed ids)
(uRipmKNdgnFzJOFG)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>
+
Thanks, guys!>>While serif fonts are more readable on the prenitd page, they look cluttered to me on the web, especially when they are small.Hmmmmm, one of my pet peeves ;-)I come from a print background, where serif fonts are definitely believed to be more readable.  So I admit that I have a bias.  Times is a horrible font on screen; its x-height (the height of the lower-case letters) is smaller than most other fonts, and therefore far less readable at the same "size." A lot of the online readability studies looked at Times as the serif font, and I agree that it deserves to lose there.But I'm not really happy with the serif fonts I can easily use in Blogger.  To me, they tend to blur together in long paragraphs, and I feel like my eye starts to lose track of the lines.  Georgia (the font I'm using) has a nice large x-height I feel like I can track the lines a little better when there are serifs.But I know sans-serif is much more popular online.  One person even told me once that I was hurting my credibility by using serif fonts.I'll check out those article references, and even though I wrote a lot above, I am actually open to being persuaded on this one.  After all, the blog is supposed to be for you folks, not me.  So thanks for the suggestion, and I'll consider it seriously.Anyone else have an opinion?>>sans serif fonts were developed specifically for electronic mediaNope, they as headline fonts long before the debut of electronic media. But there have been some nice sans-serif font designs created especially for electronic media, so the spirit of your comment is right.
This is the "Publication Result Format Header" template.
+
It should be called in the following format:
+
<pre>
+
{{Publication Result Format Header}}
+
</pre>
+
Edit the page to see the template text.
+
</noinclude><includeonly>
+
{| class="smwtable sortable"
+
  ! !! First Author !! Publication Title !! Journal Name !! Publication ID
+
|-
+
</includeonly>
+

Latest revision as of 04:47, 21 May 2013

Thanks, guys!>>While serif fonts are more readable on the prenitd page, they look cluttered to me on the web, especially when they are small.Hmmmmm, one of my pet peeves ;-)I come from a print background, where serif fonts are definitely believed to be more readable. So I admit that I have a bias. Times is a horrible font on screen; its x-height (the height of the lower-case letters) is smaller than most other fonts, and therefore far less readable at the same "size." A lot of the online readability studies looked at Times as the serif font, and I agree that it deserves to lose there.But I'm not really happy with the serif fonts I can easily use in Blogger. To me, they tend to blur together in long paragraphs, and I feel like my eye starts to lose track of the lines. Georgia (the font I'm using) has a nice large x-height I feel like I can track the lines a little better when there are serifs.But I know sans-serif is much more popular online. One person even told me once that I was hurting my credibility by using serif fonts.I'll check out those article references, and even though I wrote a lot above, I am actually open to being persuaded on this one. After all, the blog is supposed to be for you folks, not me. So thanks for the suggestion, and I'll consider it seriously.Anyone else have an opinion?>>sans serif fonts were developed specifically for electronic mediaNope, they as headline fonts long before the debut of electronic media. But there have been some nice sans-serif font designs created especially for electronic media, so the spirit of your comment is right.