Self-host your fonts for better performance • Hacker News Board

Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance

#211

Post by ivanche » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 2:13 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #204

smichel17 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm well aware. But that day will be when it stops working, and right now it still works fine. (Actually, it will be some time after that, since the day it stops working I will spend some time investigating how much work it would be to un-break it myself. The web can pry uMatrix from my cold, dead fingers. And I suspect I am not alone in feeling that way.)

Is there a reason to not use uBlock Origin? I’ll admit, I never used uMatrix, so I don’t know what it does; only adblockers.

I use both, they work even better together! uMatrix for enabling JavaScript and cookies only on sites I care about, and uBlock Origin for some cosmetic filtering.

Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance

#212

Post by zinekeller » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 2:14 PM UTC

alisonkisk wrote: post #180

corty wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, good is relative. MacOS renders fonts in a weight-and-form-correct way which makes them look blurry however. Windows renders fonts in a weight-and-form-incorrect way, which however makes them sharper and easier to read on screens, especially with resolutions below 200dpi. Now if you use a high-resolution monitor and print-optimized fonts, MacOS will look better. If you use a low-resolution monitor and screen-op…

> Problem is, most designers come from print and use This can't still be true. No one comes from print anymore.

> This can't still be true. No one comes from print anymore.

It is. The real problem is that a large number of designers like to have a pixel-perfect experience (which on print doesn't really matter as they know what paper will that publication use).

Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance

#213

Post by _underfl0w_ » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 2:16 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #204

smichel17 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm well aware. But that day will be when it stops working, and right now it still works fine. (Actually, it will be some time after that, since the day it stops working I will spend some time investigating how much work it would be to un-break it myself. The web can pry uMatrix from my cold, dead fingers. And I suspect I am not alone in feeling that way.)

Is there a reason to not use uBlock Origin? I’ll admit, I never used uMatrix, so I don’t know what it does; only adblockers.

Not OP but it may have to do with how granular the control is - that's my reason anyway. uMatrix breaks down different types of elements into a literal matrix/grid by party, site, and element type (i.e. 1st or 3rd party, current site or e.g. js.stripe.com, cookies vs images vs scripts vs frames etc.) so you can, say, only allow cookies from the current site but block them from gstatic.com, block the javascript from analytics.cloudflare.com, and choose to allow embedded frames from hcaptcha.com, all by clicking cells in the grid.

Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance

#214

Post by sslayer » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 2:20 PM UTC

AstroJetson wrote: post #209

_underfl0w_ wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From TFA: > Since Chrome v86, released October 2020, cross-site resources like fonts can’t be shared on the same CDN anymore. This is due to the partitioned browser cache

Which is one of the many reasons I've stopped the almost hourly updates of Chrome. I feel fo people that have bad bandwidth or poor wireless connections. One of my favorite rants if web builders and more importantly the managers of team that build websites were forced to use a DSL speed level connection daily a lot of the cruft would go away.

At this point Big Tech is no different than Big Government and just as out of touch with those forced to live with it's decisions.

Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance

#215

Post by mikolaj1024 » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 2:21 PM UTC

fludlight wrote: post #12

I never understood why browsers don't ship with more fonts, especially Chrome.

Google prefers everyone to use their CDN - it means more statistics data for them.

Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance

#216

Post by hhas01 » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 2:22 PM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #104

bzb6 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cleaner look is because most designers use macOS which renders most fonts in a way that makes them all look good (let’s not get into technical details). On Windows the same fonts might look like shit (for example some parts of a character are thicker than the rest for no apparent reason)

MacOS makes text blurry. You need a high resolution monitor for macOS font rendering to be acceptable.

Blurry on standard-resolution monitors.

On hi-def monitors and laser-printed page, it is lovely both to read and to look at.

I mean, 4K (3840×2160) 23" displays nowadays start at $300, so if you’re still on hundred-buck 1920x1080 then you’re only getting what you paid for.

Going to all hi-def displays is the single best investment I ever made as a professional programmer, reading and writing text on screens daily.

Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance

#217

Post by notfed » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 2:28 PM UTC

muspimerol wrote: post #142

rendall wrote: post #77

This article isn't advocating saying goodbye to Google Fonts. It advocates not delivering them via CDN, but self-hosting them.

Yes it is...? Google Fonts is the service, not the fonts themselves. Check the "About" and "License" tab of any font on Google Fonts, they're not created by Google.

Google Fonts is also a website which is used by many to search for and compare fonts. The site conveniently packages font files together and provides a "Download" button. I've always thought of this website as "Google Fonts" and have always downloaded and self-hosted fonts.

Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance

#218

Post by young_unixer » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 2:31 PM UTC

To me, Google Fonts means "A repository of free fonts you can download".

To the author, Google Fonts means "A CDN for fonts".

The article obviously talks about his definition, which may be confusing to people who use my definition.

Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance

#219

Post by marcosdumay » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 2:32 PM UTC

colonwqbang wrote: post #131

rangibaby wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re underestimating how much work and skill it takes to make a good font, even for a great designer, so type foundries like to lock good fonts up behind rent-seeking license agreements.

Selling fonts is not rent-seeking. Rent-seeking would be if Google demanded money from a font designer to let their fonts be "compatible" with Chrome. I.e. Pay me or I'll make sure your product doesn't work with my product. App stores is a common example; pay Apple or they'll make sure your software doesn't run on the iPhone.

Those fonts are never simply "sold".

The most usual is that you'll have to pay a certain price up-front (or monthly), and some more for each access. The odds are also good that you won't be able to host the font yourself, because well, the foundry has to count those access, doesn't it? And if you want the foundry to respond any quickly, you better pay some extra.

Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance

#220

Post by ffpip » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 2:35 PM UTC

FYI Google fonts are also loaded from the google.com domain. They can associate your login cookies with every page you visit.

As you can see, it is very sneaky by using CNAME Cloaking - https://i.imgur.com/VB2DB75.png

The request is to fonts.gstatic.com, but it resolves to gstaticadssl.l.google.com

Tracking using CNAME cloacking - https://medium.com/nextdns/cname-cloaking-the-dangerous-disg...