scott_blanchard — 2011-12-22T14:33:42-05:00 — #1
Just a few days ago, Google's web fonts collection was at 320. I checked it out today and found they are up to 393 fonts! At this rate, they'll be pushing a thousand by Spring.
I'm curious if you've noticed and in particular, I see that when I sort by "Date added" a few older fonts (Nosifer, Eater, Creepster and Butcherman) are appearing as if they had just been added, although these fonts were available at least a month ago.
Does this mean they were updated (perhaps improved font metrics) and re-added?
ralphm — 2011-12-22T17:48:20-05:00 — #2
I'm not sure, but to be honest, I find Google fonts very buggy and have never gotten one to work cross-browser, whereas I've had no problems with FontSquirrel fornts.
system — 2011-12-23T14:29:51-05:00 — #3
Ditto... The idea of sending only what the end user needs is semi-attractive, but it ends up coming down to browser sniffing which is ALWAYS a steaming pile of failure. Real CSS3 fonts for the win, Google fonts, not so much.
scott_blanchard — 2011-12-23T20:57:26-05:00 — #4
I suppose it depends on the implementation. This site reflects my standard implementation > http://plasticmailboxes.net/
Google handles all the details, I just call the font script and apply the css. Works fine in every browser I've tested.
kohoutek — 2011-12-23T21:43:22-05:00 — #5
I don't think Ralph meant the implementation but rather the quality and readability of Google fonts per se.
ralphm — 2011-12-23T22:04:26-05:00 — #6
Actually, I did mean the implementation. I've never gotten Google fonts to show in each browser. Can't remember now, but they may show in Chrome while not in FF, Safari etc. I don't think I was doing anything wrong, as you just use the link Google gives you. But I just gave up in the end. I've gone back to them several times, but finally gave up earlier this year.
scott_blanchard — 2011-12-23T22:15:58-05:00 — #7
Can you see these?
ralphm — 2011-12-23T22:18:14-05:00 — #8
Yes. I'm not at my normal PC, but tested in 3 browsers and see them in each. Perhaps some fonts work better than others. I'll have to investigate more.
scott_blanchard — 2011-12-23T22:25:12-05:00 — #9
I've got several examples using different fonts. I haven't found one yet that I can break. If you'll tell me which you'd like to use, I'll hook up an example.
Here's a few more:
http://amazonia.clickbump.com/ - Oswald, Cederville Cursive
http://gadget.clickbump.com/ - Shanti, Schoolbell
http://ctr.clickbump.com/ - Signika, Shadows into Light
sega — 2011-12-24T00:57:56-05:00 — #10
I did have a similar problem with TypeKit, but it seams that I was at fault. Some fonts require italic or bold properties in the CSS class. After doing this the font worked perfectly in all browsers. Maybe this is your problem. Glad to be of assistance, let me know if this solved the issue.
ulthane — 2011-12-24T04:33:33-05:00 — #11
do u guys know maybe where i can get the 'symbola' font to run on my site? i've tried looking for it on any of the sites u gave above and couldn't find it
edit: i've found it here but only as TTF format: http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/
mrflicks — 2011-12-25T07:12:32-05:00 — #12
Know that feeling
From aha finally on to something that means I can have fonts across all browsers that don't have to be part of images to display and then hmm not so great after all.
Blimey fonts are a nightmare IMHO I just got WACICO as a name and need to develop a font. I have a partner who can do so but how do you approach such things and still make it so the font could get used in things like illustrated Children's books (the first of which I have coming out this year for my cartoon characters)?
I really wish (like other things) that the world of fonts was easier.
system — 2011-12-26T19:07:02-05:00 — #13
In a lot of ways I wish it wasn't easier... just from an accessibilty standpoint because I find 99% of web fonts hard to read... which is why I don't use them on my own pages... the "for print"-tards and people who know nothing about websites might get over excited for fancy illegible fonts, but if I'm using the web for what it's for -- delivering information -- webfonts for content text is just another steaming pile of useless bloated slow junk.
Though for non-content areas it's kind-of interesting -- I'd just never use them on anything I expect people to actually read.
But what do I know, my favorite font is Arial.
scott_blanchard — 2011-12-27T09:52:22-05:00 — #14
FWIW, I only apply web fonts to headings and post excerpts, but that's only because I'm satisfied with default font stacks for large content blocks.
The web is rapidly transforming to consume the print world. As more and more magazines and books make the transition to the web, the drive to bring the print aesthetic to the web (and that's largely built around fonts) will mandate a rich set of typographic tools and capabilities.
There's no reason we cannot have accessibility and aesthetic. The advent and adoption of CSS delivered us from table based layouts cemented with single pixel transparent gifs. Its doing the same with typography.
Responsive design and rich typography are the next major waves of the web in 2012.
Tell Amazon.com that the only role for the web is delivering information
sdt76 — 2011-12-28T14:44:33-05:00 — #15
The designer using webfonts needs to keep in mind x-height. Something like Garamond Premier Pro is a beautifully designed typeface and a great go-to for print, I wouldn't use for web even if it was legal, because the x-height is so low making web readability a nightmare, combined with the fact that the letterforms are on the narrower side of the fence and the thick-to-thin contrast is high. Since the more widespread accessibility to webfonts is fairly new, the greater use of them, I believe, will lead to type designers like adobe, to begin designing web versions of those fonts. So we might start to see a Garamond with greater x-heights and less contrast in letterforms, specifically designed for the web and offered via a service like Google, providing they fix their service. I'd love to see that.
scott_blanchard — 2012-01-01T11:08:43-05:00 — #16
Good point about x height. Font metrics can vary greatly depending on the typeface you are working with. This is the same regardless if using web fonts or not.
I include a font previewer in my WordPress theme options panel.
This allows the site owner to preview the font as well as its metrics in context of adjacent in-flow text blocks. I also include a custom css box to allow them to adjust margins, padding and line height as needed for each individual element in which fonts are applied to (Site Title, Site Tagline, Post Excerpt and All Hx level headings).
Hope this helps someone. Google web fonts, when implemented correctly, are brain dead simple and rock solid across every browser I've tested them on.
There are over 3,000 individuals & businesses who use my WordPress theme, representing tens of thousands of websites, and I've not received one negative support issue on Web fonts.