EPTHelvetica for the Web - Page 2
| Blogs > itsjustatank |
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9157 Posts
| ||
|
VManOfMana
United States764 Posts
On June 04 2013 11:41 Mjolnir wrote: 3. Tried to use it, it's through typekit. They wanted cash. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. Thanks for the answers! The font itself is free, but you pay for Typekit's hosting service. | ||
|
VManOfMana
United States764 Posts
On June 04 2013 11:17 itsjustatank wrote: When a font choice disables usability for a significant amount of users when a common font that is interchangeable for it on the web is an option, it just shouldn't be used. The number of people who use Chrome, have Helvetica installed, and use Flickr has to be a significant amount of people. Is it the font or the font renderer? What did you use to take those screenshots? Windows' font renderer is notoriously bad with fonts not specifically hinted for it (Verdana, Tahoma, Georgia, the Vista fonts, etc). Fonts like FF Din and Univers *are* excellent web fonts. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9157 Posts
| ||
|
GhandiEAGLE
United States20754 Posts
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/im-comic-sans-asshole ? + Show Spoiler +  | ||
|
VManOfMana
United States764 Posts
On June 04 2013 12:34 itsjustatank wrote: Fonts that require certain web browsers or operating systems to look usable at not excellent web fonts. Font engines that can only display some fonts properly and are optimized for low DPI should not hold web typography. Especially if the trend is moving towards devices that do not have such limitations. Proper font rendering is not new, it just has been deficient on certain platforms for longer than needed. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9157 Posts
| ||
|
VManOfMana
United States764 Posts
On June 04 2013 13:38 itsjustatank wrote: i understand that opinion as well, but for production sites, such as Flickr in the case of my examples; designers should wait for technology to catch up. we can talk about a pretty web but if it unusable or messed up for a significant amount of one's customer base, it is not a good thing. But the technology is here. Proper font technology on the desktop has been around for a decade (just not on Windows-well, it did get better with Cleartype, but the font needs to be hinted for it). DPI keeps increasing with mobile platforms and the advent of 4k resolution on TV and the desktop. It is not a question on letting technology catch up, but how long it will take to phase out "old" technology. It's a similar situation to web design. The technology was there to make better web development with Gecko, Presto, and then Webkit, but it took way too long to finally move on from IE5 or IE6 "optimized" development. The advantage, this time, is that the trend is moving away from a single platform. | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
Not everyone can either: read small pixel fonts, or have a low-enough/high-enough resolution to properly/easily display that size as legible. Font size (AND THEIR CONTAINERS) should be done with ems. Otherwise the website will break and look stupid (or worse be illegible) for people who have larger or smaller font sizes set to override. example: ![[image loading]](http://i43.tinypic.com/2q89csp.jpg) TL main website has had some icky coding for quite a long while; they don't really seem to care about it much at all, and would rather make new page headers (like the broken one pictured) than use the one they had before (what was wrong with the slightly different one from a month or two ago?). On June 04 2013 08:57 MoonBear wrote: What's your opinion on Trebuchet, Lucida and Tahoma then? On June 04 2013 10:16 Torte de Lini wrote: Bring in the Calibri! On June 04 2013 10:22 EpiK wrote: what about calibri? That's my personal favorite As far as I know, those fonts tend to be exclusive to specific operating systems (sometimes specific versions of specific operating systems as well), namely Microsoft Windows. I guess now that import is supported well by all browsers you could import fonts that are not web safe, but aside from potential copyright/usage issues (unless I'm mistaken), there's still the minor issue of visitors using plugins like noscript which will block imported fonts by default (unless/until the user trusts/allows the site). | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
I love the new Segoe UI but it is absolute shit outside of Internet Explorer, which is infuriating, and to tip it off it isn't supported with Macs and there's no licensing available for it. The look of every other font just doesn't work for me any more, which makes me rage so much. Really my last hopes are like, PT Sans or Droid Sans or Lato but they do not scale up for headers that well with the design I want. Museo Sans has the same issues. AGHH fonts. I welcome suggestions for good free to use sans serif fonts. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9157 Posts
On June 04 2013 14:06 Blisse wrote: Fuck. Reminds me. I love the new Segoe UI but it is absolute shit outside of Internet Explorer, which is infuriating, and to tip it off it isn't supported with Macs and there's no licensing available for it. The look of every other font just doesn't work for me any more, which makes me rage so much. Really my last hopes are like, PT Sans or Droid Sans or Lato but they do not scale up for headers that well with the design I want. Museo Sans has the same issues. AGHH fonts. I welcome suggestions for good free to use sans serif fonts. http://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/Cabin http://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/Open Sans http://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/News Cycle | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On June 04 2013 14:18 itsjustatank wrote: http://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/Cabin http://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/Open Sans http://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/News Cycle Say no to Open Sans! But holy shit Cabin just blew me away  tyty I will see if it works! | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
| ||
|
Piledriver
United States1697 Posts
On June 04 2013 14:26 Blisse wrote: Say no to Open Sans! But holy shit Cabin just blew me away tyty I will see if it works!My personal favorite sans serif fonts Droid Sans Lato | ||
|
aNGryaRchon
United States438 Posts
| ||
salle
Sweden5554 Posts
| ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2579 Posts
On June 04 2013 17:45 salle wrote: HawPig we should make browser specific css for the news templates, so good font browsers can see things in nice fonts and give boring ol' arial to chrome. Browser sniffing. Ick. We need to get the W3C working on something like a "@media all and (font-looks:shitty)" query so that we can serve nice fonts to browsers that can handle them. | ||
|
salle
Sweden5554 Posts
On June 04 2013 18:24 AmericanUmlaut wrote: Browser sniffing. Ick. We need to get the W3C working on something like a "@media all and (font-looks:shitty)" query so that we can serve nice fonts to browsers that can handle them. Or Chrome can just like sort out their font rendering engine... it's seriously bad that the only browser that can't display google fonts well is chrome. And this has been known for a long while. | ||
|
Stuv
Netherlands942 Posts
My pick is Verdana, any day of the week. All browsers render it very well, its the best readable font for smartphones/iPads especially. To be honest, theres no competition unless you want a spefic look and feel. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
e: Wow. Is this the rendering you were talking about? It looks much, much worse on Chrome than Firefox. | ||
| ||
