With respect, I very strongly disagree with @JoeShmoe‘s opinion. I’m using the same font for a preview of my blog comments on my new site. Georgia is undoubtedly one of the best typefaces ever made for the screen.
I definitely appreciate the thoughts. As for myself I have no hard rules yet on fonts ( I am still just a baby in the artistic side of things). The font types that I am using now are an experiment in mixing sans and serif fonts, with the serif fonts in the headers. There seems to be a lot of sometimes very emotional opinions on font selection which can make it harder to figure out what a target audience would feel good about fontwise.
For example, with some exceptions I don’t see much of a difference in legibility between many fonts. But there are obviously people that notice these things, even to the point of what appears to be pain for fonts that bother them. Is this just a blind spot for me, and if so, how do I correct it?
I’m sure certain font-sizes could be subjective. Just like with any development project, you have to test. Well, the same goes with type.
Go here: Cantarell. This was specifically designed to be on a HTC mobile phone. Take a look at the `$` and `@` glyph symbols. Now go down and view the lowercase glyphs. They look horribly pixelated from bad hinting. That’s a poor quality font.
Go here: Apres. This was specifically designed for the Palm Pre. Much higher quality and profound manual hinting.
OK, I see more fuzziness/pixelation on Cantarell in the smaller font sizes, but not so much with Apres. Spacing between letters “appears” to be more consistant and tighter in Apres, though I notice that letter combinations like “ox”, “ew” are also different somehow, perhaps closer together by a pixel like they are tucked together just a tiny bit more.