The caching argument is valid, for some browsrs, but the "load time" one really isn't. If your HTML doesn't contain link prefetching (which is async) for your google fonts, and really any linked asset that your page will need up front in order to even load "above the fold", that's on you, not on google fonts.
Self-host your fonts for better performance
251–260 of 417 posts
Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance
#252Earlier 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.
uMatrix is uBlock Origin (uBO) with 2 differences:
1) No cosmetic filtering.
2) A more powerful interface, as _underfl0w_ describes at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25302405
The key thing which that comment does not mention is that the interface enables a whitelist approach — block everything (read: as much as you want) by default and selectively allow certain types of content from certain sites.
This is important because of where your effort is spent.
With uBO, sites always work by default, but it requires manual effort — albeit mostly not by regular users — to stay up to date and blocking the latest trackers and annoyances. So, the amount of effort to keep uBO functioning is proportional to the rate of change in tracking. uBO is an arms race between advertisers and blocklist maintainers.
With uMatrix, all annoyances are gone by default, but often so is desired functionality. It requires manual effort to make the site work again, but once it works, it will continue to work until the site owner changes which types of resources must be loaded in order to function. So, the amount of effort required to keep uMatrix functioning is proportional to the rate of development, specifically major changes.
So, really, the two approaches take a different bet. uBO bets that trackers and ads will change less frequently than functionality. uMatrix bets the opposite. I know which bet I think is more reasonable. Advertisers have way more incentive to try and circumvent uBO than developers do to regularly break their site's functionality.
This all said, it works very well to use both. Having uBO installed means that when you're un-breaking sites in uMatrix, and you allow something that was actually advertising, uBO will usually catch it for you, so you don't have to see ads. This means you don't have to think quite so hard before allowing something in uMatrix, which makes the overall experience much more pleasant.
Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance
#253Even before browsers started implementing separate caches, I really hated the idea of using anything off of a Google CDN. You don't pay them. You're not their customer. There is no SLA.
Just host it yourself, or us a CDN you pay for. Why depend on an external service with no SLA, just for a little speed boost? If they're down, you're down. Break those dependencies on external sites when they're not necessary.
Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance
#254FYI 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...
I maintain a small hosts file project for blocking ads and tracking. I get so many complaints about blocking google fonts that I had to add a section to my README specifically for it [0]. I don't block google fonts, but I do block gstaticadssl.l.google.com and most blockers will block based on CNAME values now. Oh well.
Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance
#255Title is very misleading and sensationalistic.
It's about keeping Google Fonts (not saying goodbye!) but simply self-hosting them instead of using Google's CDN for better performance.
Seems like the author's trying to bait us by making us first assume Google's canceling the product, or that Google's done something scandalous so we should avoid it. :(
Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance
#256Earlier 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
You'd think there should be some technical solution to avoid the privacy issues of this. Eg make it always take one second or something.
The whole point of caching in the first place is to make things take less time when possible. That would be a strictly worse solution than self-hosting if performance is your most important outcome.
Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance
#257Maybe I'm being naïve, but why don't browsers ship with more popular fonts bundled to avoid problems like these? I have no issue with any of my browsers taking up fractionally more space for an extensive cache of the most popular web fonts when the payoff is better performance on so many sites. Of course, servers should still be capable of serving the fonts that the client requires to render the content correctly, bu…
Copyright and size: fonts are larger than you might think because they need full Unicode support and good fonts have tuned variants for different weights, styles, and sizes, along with alternate symbols and ligatures, etc. which all add up. Self-hosting is the way to go since it gives you full artistic control and you can use things like the Unicode-range CSS property to tell clients how to combine smaller fonts so y…
> fonts are larger than you might think because they need full Unicode support
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but don't the vast majority of fonts _not_ include full Unicode support, or even close to it? I know of GNU Unifont, but not many people are using that on the web...
I take your point on selectively downloading the relevant glyphs for the user's locale, but this could be done by the browser too - it is aware of the locale.
Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance
#258This site will make your live easier to dl and host the font yourself: https://google-webfonts-helper.herokuapp.com/fonts
Highly appreciated hint (original author). Note that I haven't updated this project in ~4 years and it's still spinning on Heroku's free tier, haven't spend a penny for the API hosting costs.
Some recommendations regarding the CSS may be outdated by current "webfont hosting standards". Let's see what 2021 will bring for this project...
Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If they didn’t do this you (or someone with similar attitudes) would be complaining that cross site caching allows fingerprinting and violates privacy (which is almost certainly why they did do this).
Yeah, however, they could make these things configuration rather than imposing a policy on every user: in different contexts different privacy/performance tradeoffs are acceptable
Re: Self-host your fonts for better performance
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
Radicalization is the style of the time! Their side is heinous, evil, and kills babies. Our side is just, wondrous, and angel like. Thus, they enslave, we strive to break free, and bask in the pure bliss our utter and complete correctness enables.
Both sides, amirite?
I guess this is political-ish now, but yes.
I'm a Canuck, and frankly most differences between US political parties is barely tangible. For many parts of the world, with real political differences, the US left and right appear completely identical.
Yet sadly, each side seems to see only the differences.