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

Web fonts, boy, I don't know

meowni.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 333 posts

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

#261

Post by GrinningFool »

zanny wrote: post #181
ChuckMcM wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience has been web designers are strongly in either the "system fonts are an abomination before God" camp, or the "the user picked the system fonts, lets use those." camp. Oddly pulling them from one camp into the other seems very very difficult.

What happens when a user makes their system font esoteric-new-age-web-sans-font-#523626263278 and your page and the system itself are using the same font?

Then your page looks like crap - but since it's a guest on the user's system, that's entirely up to them.

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

#262

Post by myrion »

alanh wrote: post #210
esonderegger wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to agree with you, but I think it's important to constantly be trying to understand where other people are coming from. They might not be so unreasonable; they just have different priorities than we do. Our idea of what a webpage is might be a text document where the presentation is less important than the content. To others, the presentation IS the content. For some people, it might depend on what message the…

Where you are wrong, I think, is that “the presentation IS the content” is a common belief among “designers” but almost never the belief of users.

That's not really true. They won't consciously believe that, but they won't use the technically superior product, if the competitor has the basics and a better design.

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

#264

Post by et-al »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #163
esonderegger wrote: post #84

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. If macOS, Windows, Debian, iOS, and Android all came with Roboto, Source Sans, Lato, Merriweather, Raleway,…

This is because a vanishingly small percentage of designers have truly, in their heart, accepted the web as a medium. They'll sit lovingly with a bunch of dinged up old lead typesetting tools, positively jizz over imperfections in ink distribution, but try to talk to them about system fonts, box models, or free phones and their eyes glaze over and they drift off into their color calibrated RAW dreamland. In schools t…

> This is because a vanishingly small percentage of designers have truly, in their heart, accepted the web as a medium.

That seems a bit harsh. If anything, I feel like the old static print mindset is on its way out and designers have been leaning towards the web as a medium with dynamic layouts. Speakers[0] at An Event Apart spoke of the web as a fluid continuum, so even the idea of designing for only mobile and desktop is insufficient these days (especially with all the varying device sizes).

If you're working with any designer that still expects pixel perfection, I'd suggest that they attend An Event Apart conference, or at least read a few articles on A List Apart.

[0] http://alistapart.com/article/responsive-web-design

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

#265

Post by robotresearcher »

lmm wrote: post #213
zzzcpan wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's _also_ a very reasonable & readable amount of text in a row Presumably, that's why they used 80 characters in the first place, as anything more is too hard to read.

It was 80 columns to match a punch card, AIUI, not a decision on readability grounds at all.

And why was a punch card 80 columns?

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

#266

Post by robotresearcher »

matt4077 wrote: post #142
phkahler wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

I like my websites with a standard haircut because they load so fast.

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

#267

Post by mbrock »

phkahler wrote: post #120
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?…

>> > Type can put fashion over function, but it can also enhance function by making text more readable, How so? I mean, I've literally chosen my system fonts based on readability (to me, on my screen, with my eyesight, with my lighting conditions, etc!). I'm also used to those fonts. Oh come on, the "designer" knows what's best for you. ;-) I was going to make a similar response, but you beat me so sarcasm.

Designers don't typically design for people who change their default fonts because most people don't know how and on some platforms it's not even possible.

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

#268

Post by mbrock »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #227
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a completely unrealistic view of how designers work. I've yet to meet a web designer who would have the first clue what to do with hot metal. There are some old guys who remember physical typesetting for print, but design has been primarily electronic for around twenty years now. The history of the web started after most print had already moved to digital fonts and layout with Pagemaker, then Quark Xpress. It…

That's exactly my point. You are unwilling to accept the properties of your medium. You just say "it sucks" and fight with it. You're like an acrylic painter who complains that oil dries slowly and keeps designing for acrylics, and everything comes out smudgy.

Web fonts are a part of the web, so it kind of sounds like you're the one refusing to accept the properties of the medium.

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

#269

Post by lucb1e »

elcapitan wrote: post #27

Are there actually font blockers like ad blockers? That would solve the problem pretty easily for everybody who's annoyed. Although they probably won't be available for mobile browsers, where it's the most painful.

In your hosts file or with PrivacyBadger, kill (iirc) fonts.gstatic.com

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

#270

Post by DocTomoe »

> awesome free roaming 2G

So instead of fixing the real problem - which is obviously connectivity - we need to break the web and add another layer of Javascript complexity to something that works perfectly fine without.

It's 2016. 2G is 25 years old (started in 1991!). Stop being cheap. Stop working with 2G.

Post reply on HN