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

Google Fonts Redesigned

fonts.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 268 posts

Re: Google Fonts Redesigned

#231

Post by creshal »

colemickens wrote: post #196
Artemis2 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google doesn't want you to use Chromium. Use Chrome instead, it's exactly like Chromium but with all the Google bloatware installed!

>with all the Google bloatware installed! Oh yeah? Like what? Sorry, does anyone downvoting want to actually explain to me what "bloatware" is "bundled into" Chrome? Or just more errant bullshit that's tacitly accepted because it's anti-Google rhetoric fired from the hip without substance? Those audio/video codecs... so much bloat! https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs... Or maybe you're upset…

Google Chrome also ships various Google Apps extensions that are enabled by default. No idea why that's not in their documentation.

Re: Google Fonts Redesigned

#234

Post by calewis »

A "+" icon that has a hover state and an interaction, yet do different things? Good work. Nice quotes are irrelevant if you can't get the basics of user experience right.

Re: Google Fonts Redesigned

#236

Post by Freak_NL »

HelloNurse wrote: post #223
recursive wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Chromification is any better.

Indeed, in 2016 requiring IE can be forgiven as a symptom of Microsoft captivity and/or being behind the times, while requiring Chrome is a proud proclamation of some mixture of not caring about standards, not caring about UX, not caring about users, not caring about proper web design (in order to avoid proprietary features), and being an ignorant and arrogant Google fanboy.

It's strange too, because if you are building a production-ready (i.e., not a proof-of-concept demo using bleeding edge technologies supported in only one browser) website or webapplication, the bare minimum level of browser support that grants you a very modern set of features you can depend on is to only support up-to-date evergreen browsers. That means Chrome/Chromium, Edge, and Firefox.

I can get dropping Edge if you are an individual developer and simply don't have any Windows machines around (testing websites from a VM really sucks), but going Chrome-only pushes us back to the monopoly position that harmed our field so much in the first place.

Actively moving towards a webkit-monoculture ultimately harms our profession.

Re: Google Fonts Redesigned

#237

Post by HappyTypist »

microcolonel wrote: post #172
Cacti wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chromium of all browsers gets pestered all the time by Google services. It's... odd.

Which Google services are you talking about? I've been running Chromium for about 6 years as my main browser and I don't remember a site even detecting that it wasn't Chrome, let alone pestering me.

He's probably using Ubuntu. They chose to patch Chromium's user agent to identify as Chromium, not Chrome. Obviously that breaks stuff.

Re: Google Fonts Redesigned

#239

Post by pmontra »

michaelmrose wrote: post #70
mortenjorck wrote: post #12

This is a gorgeous redesign that really lets the typography shine, as well as deftly addressing numerous usability issues with the old site. The family size filter in particular makes finding a usable set of weights much easier, and the featured section adds a welcome new layer of curation. Two minor observations: - It would be a great addition to the family size slider to be able to filter for "contains italics." So…

Are you using chrome? It looks pretty dumb in firefox. It looks like this. http://imgur.com/IT7x83h

Confirmed, Firefox on Ubuntu. There are no errors in the console. I wonder if it's some add on playing bad with that site. It's not the fonts because all the web will be like that.

Re: Google Fonts Redesigned

#240

Post by xaduha »

row1an wrote: post #204
xaduha wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They do provide proper cache headers. They cache the CSS for 1 day. The actual font files are cached for a lot longer than that. I don't see it, not with curl at least. Looks like actual fonts are cached for a year. But not CSS, > curl https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Open+Sans -i expires:Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:02:03 GMT date:Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:02:03 GMT At the very least they should allow to control that with…

Expires is a HTTP/1.0 header, Cache-Control is HTTP/1.1 and used by anything created in the last 10-15 years. Most sites set the Expires header similar to their Cache-Control max-age, but I guess Google just doesn't care and it doesn't really matter anyway.

You might be right, but what I see in the browser dev tools is that my page always gets the CSS from Google Fonts and that does matter to me.
Post reply on HN