Five Minute Upgrade – Variety in Title and Body Fonts
Are you a one font wonder?
Contrary to what you may think, mixing fonts in web layouts can actually be quite beneficial. It can help to increase usability, promote emphasis, and add some flair to an otherwise monotonous page.
In this post we’ll examine the trends of mixed typefaces and take a look at some fantastic example pages out on the web.
Variation Adds Emphasis
Color, size, and vertical heirarchy are all tried and true ways to distinguish between unique page elements. How about a change in font? A reader may not conciously register the difference, but even a subtle difference in type can make a page feel a little more segmented.
Having a hard time picturing what I mean? Keep the above idea in mind as you look over some prime examples from around the internet.
Using Serif with Sans-Serif
For those sites that use both sans-serif and serif fonts the trend seems to be that the titles are serif, while any body material is largely the smoother sans-serif.
Georgia is a common first pick in the font-family for titles, while Lucida Grande dominated the first font choice in the sites sampled for this article.

The Big Noob (http://thebignoob.com/posts/8-15am/)
Title: “Century Schoolbook”, Georgia, Times, serif
Body: “Lucida Grande”, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial,sans-serif

Web Design Ledger (http://webdesignledger.com/)
Title: Georgia, “Nimbus Roman No9 L”, serif
Body: Arial, sans-serif

The White House Blog (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/06/The-First-Lady-at-Miriams-Kitchen/)
Title: Georgia, “Times New Roman”, Times, serif
Body: “Lucida Sans Unicode”, “Lucida Grande”, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif

Tutorial9 (http://www.tutorial9.net/photography/wildlife-photography-tips-take-better-wildlife-photos/)
Title: “Palatino Linotype”, “Book Antiqua”, Palatino, FreeSerif, serif
Body: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif
Or Keep it in the Family
Where the sites above stick with variety, these sites stick with the consistent sans-serifs. For titles, Helvetica seems to be a popular choice over Arial. The body type typically stays simple, although certain sites (like Virb) have incredibly specific font stacks.
Note: Unless I’m missing something, someone at Virb must have a great sense of humor. Jamrul is a Bengali typeface, and I doubt most people could read it.
Smashing Magazine (http://www.smashingmagazine.com/)
Title: Helvetica, Arial, Calibri, sans-serif
Body: Verdana,Helvetica, Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, sans-serif

Virb (http://virb.com/)
Title: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif
Body: “Lucida Grande”, “Jamrul”, Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif

Creattica Daily (http://daily.creattica.com/)
Title: “Trebuchet MS”, Helvetica, sans-serif
Body: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif
What’s your Take?
The sites showcased above have done a great job of demonstrating beneficial uses of mixed type. The font stacks used on these sites are a great starting point for any future design overhauls.
Should this technique be common place in good web design? Do you think font variation enhances a design, or goes largely unnoticed? Share your thoughts with us in the comments!















Discussion
March 10th, 2009 at 3:15 AM
Nice post, interesting to see some alternatives to the norm. I’m a big fan of Georgia headings and Arial body text at the moment but should try experimenting a bit more.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:53 PM
I like the new Whitehouse.gov design and therefore like to use there serif and sans-serif font family as of late. The subtle differences in font make a huge difference, in my opinion.
Nice article to reference. Thanks
March 25th, 2009 at 6:57 AM
Nice post, this is very interesting to see, I’m gonna start using “Jamrul” from now on ;)
tim’s last blog post..Free Textures…
July 19th, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Many of these uses are simply ridiculous. Most of these fonts used in the examples shown are not on people’s computers, so they are not seeing what the designer supposedly wants them to see. Using anything other than “standard web fonts” for anything that is not an image is EXTREMELY poor web design.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:52 PM
@Bill D
Standard web fonts are a great way to ensure compatibility, and you’re correct in saying that a web designer should include them.
However, I do disagree with your overall statement. If you’re familiar with CSS font stacks, compatibility shouldn’t be a concern at all. Designs would be extremely limited if you were allowed to only use compatible fonts. With font stacks, you have the options of selecting preference. If the viewer happens to have prioritized fonts, they get to see them. If not, no big deal.
I’d encourage you to read this article on proper usages of font stacks. It may open your eyes to some great new design possibilities. Here’s a quote from the section “Font Stacks Give You Freedom” to consider in the meantime:
“You want to use Gill Sans? Go right ahead. Nothing should stop you. Font stacks are prioritized lists of fonts, defined in the CSS font-family attribute, that the browser will cycle through until it finds a font that is installed on the user’s system. This means that you can use Gill Sans, and if your users don’t have it, you can give them an adequate substitute that will not diminish their experience.”
December 30th, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Great examples.
And by the way,
@Bill D
You should check out what’s going on over at this nifty little place called typekit (http://typekit.com)
It’s really cool, FREEDOM OF THE FONTS! ;)
Join the Conversation!
Remember: Life's not all doom and gloom, so please keep it constructive. If we've made an error or missed something big, please let us know! Learning is revisions, after all.