The sole criterion of a monospace font is that all glyphs have the same fixed width.... The effect is similar to a manual typewriter, and is often used to set samples of computer code.
I don't know that that fully backs the apparent intent of your observation re "no distinction between serif and sans-serif...." In fact, I found nothing that tells me that a monospace sans-serif is impossible/non-existant (but on the other hand I conceed, I have not found a monospace sans-serif yet, let alone one which is cross-platform, commonly available, and free.).
As for "more appropriately a user concern" I offer another view: that fonts are a design element and that good design makes the rendered matter easy for the visitor to read. (Update My reading suggests a general agreement today that sans-serif is -- on screen -- more readable, more readily comprehended, than serif, while the reverse may be true when presented on dead trees. </update>) Further, it's a non-intrusive design element, since the knowledgeable user can easily use a local stylesheet to override any element which obstructs comprehension.
For (perhaps excess) clarity: It seems to me that there is NO contradiction or inconsistency between my observation re the user's ability to spec a different face and my notion that the designer has an duty to make comprehension easy.
In reply to Re^2: revise font?
by ww
in thread revise font?
by ww
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |