sans-serif

You compose comments with a serif font, and then the comment is posted with a sans-serif font.

Most older Pascal and Algol texts put their code in variable width, sans-serif fonts to set them apart from the text.

If it doesn't find Geneva either, it loads a generic sans-serif.

Personally, I think that Siemens Sans is maybe the most beautiful sans-serif font ever designed.

One of the anachronisms was pages purporting to be from backwoods late 19th Century newspapers and set in sans-serif faces--for all the world like 1970s phototype.

Two sans-serif fonts will always look superficially similar; the eye has to get used to different letter forms when it expects the font to stay the same.

I have a hard time believing Facebook's user base or revenue would be any different if they consistently used a certain sans-serif font.

I uploaded a sample PDF with very clear sans-serif text (printed to PDF from a webpage) and there seems to be some odd substitutions.

Most consumers will tell you that they can't tell apart Arial and any other sans-serif font; yet many companies decide that a proprietary font is a vital identity asset.

Whatever I have sans-serif set to in my browser.

The code appears to be presented in a mix of fixed-width, proportional, italic, bold, and sans-serif fonts, with a bit of colour thrown in.

Using CSS generic-family identifiers (serif, sans-serif, cursive, fantasy, and monospace) have variation and are not guarantees, but you can still use them without much concern for layouts that are designed to be appropriately accommodating.

Why doesn't Webkit on the Mac just set the respective system font as value for "sans-serif"?

That "Poiret One" typeface isn't exactly a stunner, and definitely isn't a great pairing for Lato (one of the classic rules of typography is never to mix multiple sans-serif or serif types on the same page).