Web fonts, boy, I don't know • Hacker News Board

Re: Web fonts, boy, I don't know

#141

Post by Nadya » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 8:58 PM UTC

lomnakkus wrote: post #58

smacktoward wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know your fonts are a deliberate design choice, but I'm here for content. Categorizing type as "a design choice" dismisses it as fashion rather than function, which I don't think is the case. Type can put fashion over function, but it can also enhance function by making text more readable, or perform a mix of both functions by expressing a point visually that reinforces the point the page is making textually. It…

> Categorizing type as "a design choice" dismisses it as fashion rather than function, which I don't think is the case. I think it's a question of how often it's one vs. the other. There are precious few good examples of web font usage -- so few, in fact, that I can't even think of one off the top of my head. > Type can put fashion over function, but it can also enhance function by making text more readable, How so?…

You aren't alone and some go even further!

I make my own "enhancement suite" for any website I frequent. I blacklist all Javascript by default and whitelist only Javascript necessary for things to function. I use Greasemonkey to add my own functionality to a page, sometimes blacklisting the "default" functionality and rolling my own code to replace it in a more "me-friendly" way. And finally, Stylish, so that I can completely nuke the site's CSS and roll out my own.

But most users won't go through that. They'll use the default browser font and never change it.

Corporate doesn't want to use Arial on the site, so we have a problem with the browser default. Luckily the designer has threatened to quit before they use Comic Sans. At best, they'll pick a nice legible font and at worst they'll pick something "aesthetic" that may be a pain in the ass to read. Usually you get somewhere in the middle or a (sans-)serif font from Google Fonts.

Once upon a time I could trick corporate into using Helvetica, but it seems to have "fallen out of fashion". They don't actually look at the font, they just know what they "don't want" and what they "don't want" is Arial.

Re: Web fonts, boy, I don't know

#142

Post by matt4077 » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 8:59 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #117

5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #7

I have had the exact experience in the last month. Being on a slow connection, I've come to loath web fonts. There is nothing wrong with them in general but it's just that they've come to symbolise over-indulgence and a myopia towards the users actual task-focused needs as opposed to aesthetics. Part of the issue is dealing with progressive enhancement as far as slow internet connections go. How do you solve that pro…

>> they've come to symbolise over-indulgence Yes! Why should a web site specify fonts at all? The user should set their browser to a default that they like and most sites should be happy with that. People just use web fonts because they can. If there's a particular reason you need to override the users preference then fine.

And why should anyone be allowed to set colors, or sizes, or shapes? Why don't we use .txt as the format for the web?

Because design happens to be one avenue of human expression. If you keep denying that, or label users enjoying it as superficial, you'll end up with something like North Korea, where everyone gets to choose from two approved hairstyles, walks around in "male shoe" or "female shoe" and goes home to eat soylent.

Re: Web fonts, boy, I don't know

#143

Post by jamra » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 9:04 PM UTC

NumberCruncher wrote: post #140

Tl;dr: if you are travelling in a foreign country and you think about whatever fonts... girl, you are doing it totally wrong. Buy a city guide, printed on good old fashioned paper, even if it is so 1990, and get a fuck off-line! Or just talk to the natives! In person!

I think you are a bit off with your comment. Having a web connection makes traveling much nicer. The authors mistake was not pre purchasing a data sim with a fast connection. Amateur traveler complaining about nonsense

Re: Web fonts, boy, I don't know

#144

Post by metafunctor » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 9:06 PM UTC

vbezhenar wrote: post #122

Web page should just disable web fonts, if they are not loaded after 1 second and reenable them, when they are loaded. It's not hard to do and it's greatly improves usability. Actually it would be nice, if browsers would do it automatically, show system font, if web font is not cached and it's not going to be ready in the next few milliseconds. Anything better than white page.

Chrome does something like this already. I think it's something the browser should take care of, rather than having every site use some half-baked JS solution which ends up just adding to the bloat.

Re: Web fonts, boy, I don't know

#145

Post by tyingq » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 9:07 PM UTC

cdata wrote: post #87

tyingq wrote: post #10

A 1.2 MB blog post complaining about bloat.

This comment is misleading and seems mean spirited to me. On a fresh page load with cache disabled, I'm reading 165kb transferred. The GIFs are useful and lazily loaded in response to user interactions. "Be more constructive with your feedback!"[1] 1: https://youtu.be/FArZxLj6DLk?t=88

The page was 1.2MB with the animated gifs on page with tags when this was originally posted. The page has since been optimized.

Re: Web fonts, boy, I don't know

#146

Post by zeveb » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 9:07 PM UTC

hyperpape wrote: post #138

jimktrains2 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have none of you ever worked for a designer or marketing person who was unwilling to accept that a bit of text might wrap on Windows (Arial), but fit on one line on a Mac (Helvetica)? > Until we can get the major operating systems to include some of the most popular open-source fonts, we're stuck with web fonts. This really seems to be a problem with marketing and design people; we're not stuck with webfonts. We're…

Many people in our profession write code that's less that 80 characters per line because that's how much you could display on terminals in the 70s. As a profession, we can't complain that someone might be bothered by the idea of word-wrapping.

> Many people in our profession write code that's less that 80 characters per line because that's how much you could display on terminals in the 70s.

It's _also_ a very reasonable & readable amount of text in a row. There's nothing wrong with that.

Re: Web fonts, boy, I don't know

#147

Post by paublyrne » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 9:08 PM UTC

wruza wrote: post #62

Mahn wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heck, this is my #1 complaint of almost anything on a mobile browser. It's easily the worst offender when it comes to mobile in general; I wish browser vendors put a bigger focus on fixing this, somehow.

Browser vendors against adclicks, mice against cheese, bees against honey, what you gonna do now?

Mice aren't really interested in cheese.

Re: Web fonts, boy, I don't know

#148

Post by angry-hacker » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 9:11 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #79

icebraining wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opposite of saving is not wasting, it's spending . It's only a waste if you spend it badly.

Sure, but if they made 'battery saver' the default and gave you a 'power boost' toggle would you even notice? When would you turn it on?

At least my moto g becomes laggy. It's a trade off i guess. With battery saving taking calls is enough but no more.

Re: Web fonts, boy, I don't know

#149

Post by PuffinBlue » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 9:13 PM UTC

hpaavola wrote: post #85

What fonts are available in recent versions of all major operating systems? So what are the "web safe" fonts of 2016?

These two posts were useful to me:

https://mondaybynoon.com/linux-font-equivalents-to-popular-w...

http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html

I used them when sorting the fonts for my site as I wasn't happy with the web font performance and switched to 'web safe'.

There are some good comparisons there.

You can see my choice in action here:

https://josharcher.uk

Re: Web fonts, boy, I don't know

#150

Post by callalex » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 9:14 PM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #130

lomnakkus wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Categorizing type as "a design choice" dismisses it as fashion rather than function, which I don't think is the case. I think it's a question of how often it's one vs. the other. There are precious few good examples of web font usage -- so few, in fact, that I can't even think of one off the top of my head. > Type can put fashion over function, but it can also enhance function by making text more readable, How so?…

https://www.wired.com is excellent in how they use fonts to subtly indicate importance/recency/category. Many newspapers use fonts very consciously, which usually has the effect that it doesn't enter the reader's consciousness. It's a subtle cue indicating the brand and the image it wants to project. oCmpare the NYT and the Economist – they aim to reach almost identical populations, but the NYT uses serifs (tradition…

What you just described is called fashion.