Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The New Web Typography

robinrendle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: The New Web Typography

#51

Post by z3t4 »

mrob wrote: post #26

The most readable font is the the font you're most familiar with. Spencerian script is almost illegible to me, but for people who read it ever day it's no problem. The same is true of blackletter scripts. No matter how ugly the font, people can adapt to it, and once they've adapted they'll find it preferable. If you really care about prioritizing the text, you should leave the typography to the client. I do not care…

While I think this rant is valid. Many people care more about look then readability. If it looks boring, they might not read it. So I think it's up to the client to do the font override, etc.

Re: The New Web Typography

#52

Post by bigbugbag »

twblalock wrote: post #20
ekianjo wrote: post #18

> We can learn more about prioritising the text in this way by diving deeper into the murky waters of web font loading: in my walkthrough on the subject I mentioned two of the most popular techniques. His techniques uses javascript, which goes completely behind the earlier point he is making about "typography is as strong as your weakest link". If I have Noscript on, I can't see your text correctly. That's your weake…

If you choose to disable one of the core technologies of the modern web, you'll just have to take what you can get.

The same "modern web" that mostly fails at doing web for lack of progressive enhancement.

But enough sidetracking, as ekianjo said, using a script to load the font is unnecessarily adding to its fragility and simply fails for those without javascript.

This modern web core technology being a security liability[1], invasive of privacy[2] and the facilitator of modern annoyances that gets in the way of the user, (ads, interstitial space, ...) it is an expected response from the user to disable it or restrict it to the actual domain serving the page.

[1]: http://thehackernews.com/2016/01/javascript-ransomware-malwa... [2]: http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ and http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ and http://evenbettermotherfucking.website/

Re: The New Web Typography

#53

Post by bigbugbag »

e12e wrote: post #31
ekianjo wrote: post #18

> We can learn more about prioritising the text in this way by diving deeper into the murky waters of web font loading: in my walkthrough on the subject I mentioned two of the most popular techniques. His techniques uses javascript, which goes completely behind the earlier point he is making about "typography is as strong as your weakest link". If I have Noscript on, I can't see your text correctly. That's your weake…

Nice catch, but I think you're a little too harsh. First of all, the site looks better than most other sites, with js off (I also use noscript). Secondly, one has to ask why js is disabled. The site probably looks as fine as it could in lynx or w3m. A spider can read the semantic markup fine. A screenreader while pronounce the text as well (or poorly) as is. I think most people realize that there are certain limits t…

> I also wish one could simply add a link to a font-file in the -element and be done with it.

You know you can do just that, don't you ?[1].

[1]: https://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/using-font-face/

Re: The New Web Typography

#54

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

twblalock wrote: post #20
ekianjo wrote: post #18

> We can learn more about prioritising the text in this way by diving deeper into the murky waters of web font loading: in my walkthrough on the subject I mentioned two of the most popular techniques. His techniques uses javascript, which goes completely behind the earlier point he is making about "typography is as strong as your weakest link". If I have Noscript on, I can't see your text correctly. That's your weake…

If you choose to disable one of the core technologies of the modern web, you'll just have to take what you can get.

One of the key principles of the modern web is that JavaScript is NOT a 'core technology'; it's an added bonus. Please don't make your pages break without it.

Re: The New Web Typography

#56

Post by chei0aiV »

twblalock wrote: post #20
ekianjo wrote: post #18

> We can learn more about prioritising the text in this way by diving deeper into the murky waters of web font loading: in my walkthrough on the subject I mentioned two of the most popular techniques. His techniques uses javascript, which goes completely behind the earlier point he is making about "typography is as strong as your weakest link". If I have Noscript on, I can't see your text correctly. That's your weake…

If you choose to disable one of the core technologies of the modern web, you'll just have to take what you can get.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement

Re: The New Web Typography

#57

Post by RamshackleJ »

I guess font load times > 350ms and typography flickering across the entire page on load is "new".

Its gonna be interesting to see how a unique typographic identity develops on the web but its more of a technical problem than one of design. Technical innovation, not design heavy long form journalism will blaze that trail.

Re: The New Web Typography

#59

Post by userbinator »

mrob wrote: post #26

The most readable font is the the font you're most familiar with. Spencerian script is almost illegible to me, but for people who read it ever day it's no problem. The same is true of blackletter scripts. No matter how ugly the font, people can adapt to it, and once they've adapted they'll find it preferable. If you really care about prioritizing the text, you should leave the typography to the client. I do not care…

Agree completely, in fact one of my favourite fonts is the non-antialiased monospaced 'Fixed' font that came with X:

https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs-fonts.html

With a small tweak, adding a slash to the 0, it's perfect for reading source code all day long, and I've also started using it elsewhere including the browser.

Re: The New Web Typography

#60

Post by dclowd9901 »

jeffehobbs wrote: post #11

What is it about fonts/typography that engenders such wankery? I say this with love.

Would you ever have spoken that sentence out loud in a normal conversation?

Not trying to call you out, just making a point that we all participate in a bit of wankery when it suits us.

Post reply on HN