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

291–300 of 333 posts

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

#291

Post by HelloNurse »

Kalium wrote: post #203
kutkloon7 wrote: post #202

I absolutely do not understand the need for 'web fonts'. Just specify a normal font that most users already have installed in CSS, with some fallbacks. 'Progressive styling' is way more annoying (in my humble opinion) than waiting some time. Pages like the verge can take minutes anyway, when the wifi is not optimal. When you do things progressively, the page just keeps on changing, and the page can't really be used.…

> I absolutely do not understand the need for 'web fonts'. Just specify a normal font that most users already have installed in CSS, with some fallbacks. Imagine you're a company whose business operates exclusively through your website. Imagine further that your company is the sort for whom design is critical because it drives your business. You are going to insist on making sure everything looks perfect in every sce…

"The sort of company for whom design is critical" doesn't coincide at all with the sort of company for whose website a pixel-perfect layout makes sense. Why would expert designers show off bad typography instead of good, and in the website rather than in products?

This "design control-freakery" proves that someone doesn't master simple and proven web technology. Why would you trust them with something technically complex like faithful color printing or something "artistic" like designing a logo?

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

#292

Post by thrillgore »

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…

>We still haven't seen a true modernist design movement in the digital age.

But we have -- unified design guidelines like Metro and Material Design ARE modernist design movements for the era of displays and interactive media. Just because it only applies for an Operating System or an Application doesn't make it any different than using cut-out colors or Gotham in your print ad.

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

#293

Post by cbr »

mbrock wrote: post #268
erikpukinskis wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Web fonts are a poorly performing part of the web.

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

#294

Post by NoGravitas »

phkahler wrote: post #229
egypturnash wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because font choice can communicate a lot. Font choice can establish a brand, font choice can create a mood. Web fonts are better than the stuff people did to do this in the old days. Crazy abominations like siFR [1] or rendering out a gif of your text and using that instead of just delivering some ASCII text that screenreaders can deal with? Web fonts aren't perfect, especially on slow connections, but they're the l…

Come to think of it, browsers could have a mode where they use only installed fonts regardless of what a site says. This would be useful to the people on slow connections.

Firefox supports this. In Firefox on Android, it's visible in the settings (under "data saving"). Not sure if it's surfaced in desktop, or only in about:config.

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

#295

Post by mrec »

I had a very strong impression that the quality of Web typography took a colossal nosedive when web fonts became a thing. My suspicion at the time was that this was largely a result of designers pushing pet fonts that looked fine on their Mac but like crap on other OSes (due to different rendering/hinting algos); can't prove that, though.

I did try disabling web fonts in Firefox, but then that semi-broke sites like GitHub who seemed to think that using them to display UI button images was a good idea. This is why we can't have nice things. And why designers are sometimes held in less esteem than they might like.

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

#297

Post by kutkloon7 »

mcbits wrote: post #218
kutkloon7 wrote: post #202

I absolutely do not understand the need for 'web fonts'. Just specify a normal font that most users already have installed in CSS, with some fallbacks. 'Progressive styling' is way more annoying (in my humble opinion) than waiting some time. Pages like the verge can take minutes anyway, when the wifi is not optimal. When you do things progressively, the page just keeps on changing, and the page can't really be used.…

The shifting page layout is a symptom of a broader problem, in that it's impossible to accurately predict or specify the rendered dimensions of text. Even measuring a container after the fact is unreliable because of the arbitrary amount of whitespace in different fonts. You'd have to generate a bitmap image and detect a bounding box around the pixels, which definitely won't help with loading times. This can't be don…

Yes, but isn't it so that the system font is displayed in one step? I mean, if you just have HTML with images with their dimensions specified, I don't think the page will jump around.

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

#298

Post by TeMPOraL »

et-al wrote: post #264
erikpukinskis wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 des…

Still doesn't solve the bigger problem - that neither designers nor publishers actually embraced the digital medium. They've been treating the web as if it was a poster - something for the designers to show off on. The only thing the current "responsive design" fad brought up is that the poster now changes its layout with size in a somewhat intelligent manner. But they're still drawing posters. We're still getting only text + pictures + occasional video. What about interactive descriptions? Embedded simulations? Models that we can explore, or play with? Nowhere to be found, except in occasional essay by Bret Victor.

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

#299

Post by wruza »

saghm wrote: post #254
haimez wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, describe how this "mouse" consumes anything other than "cheese" for sustenance.

Actually, I think he meant it literally: http://www.earthkind.com/blog/fact-or-fiction-do-mice-really...

What a great example of really bad webfont. That page almost broke my eyes, when saving island of bold fb comments came to the rescue. People lost in thin-line madness.

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

#300

Post by luxpir »

truth_sentinell wrote: post #183
luxpir wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Set up pihole or similar at home and none of your devices will see ads. It's great fun and makes a nice difference on mobile.

Thanks for the suggestion, but it doesn't seem good for me. Blocking things at DNS level, can be counterproductive. Maybe there's a false positive that's been blocked and it will probably a headache to find it.

It's pretty easy to whitelist a whole domain... the domains on the lists are pretty comprehensively ad-related. Your call, but it certainly is one solution.
Post reply on HN