231–240 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does that do for fontawesome-style fonts (icons in the private area) that websites love to use instead of SVGs and text labels? I personally block fonts via uBlock Origin, which lets me allow them for the subset of websites I visit regularly enough that I'm okay with allowing fontawesome-style fonts.
would this help? (disclaimer: i wrote the addon) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28165179
A tweet showing the actual difference as screenshot: https://twitter.com/Tempo_Storm/status/1425549066377777156 Appears to be a standard-res Windows rendering. (Obviously a Retina Mac/iOS rendering will be totally different.)
Twitter is not letting me view these images in full without logging in. Is that new behavior from twitter?
I was really pleased when Stack Overflow switched to system fonts [0] and hoped this would be a trend. With system fonts there is less cognitive load going from app to app. The font stays out of your way and serves its purpose best: presenting textual information. Here we have the opposite: Twitter decided that tweet bodies should perform a marketing function. They sacrificed utility for brand cohesiveness. I underst…
They often seem to be the result of inexperienced design or design by committee. An unnecessary and distracting effort at differentiation or branding. In the worst cases you might even see a FOUT or have to endure downloading 5mb of zillions of characters of some fonts your browser will never draw.
I know there are cases where it’s tasteful and well executed. I love that. It just isn’t common in my experience.
On my team at work we created a sort of pros and cons list and for our use case (instantdomainsearch.com) it made virtually no sense to incorporate a custom font into our design. When it was all laid out and considered it really drove home for me how unnecessary it is.
The designs looked really nice and it seemed compelling, but in real life on the internet I just want things to 1) load very quickly 2) draw and become interactive very quickly 3) look and feel familiar in the right ways such that I can I intuitively use the software. Custom fonts put a stick in the spokes of each of those points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox's "Don't allow websites to use custom fonts" option makes the Web feel much more cohesive and polished.
What does that do for fontawesome-style fonts (icons in the private area) that websites love to use instead of SVGs and text labels? I personally block fonts via uBlock Origin, which lets me allow them for the subset of websites I visit regularly enough that I'm okay with allowing fontawesome-style fonts.
*:not([class*='icon' i]):not(i):not([style*='icon' i]):not([aria-hidden='true']):not([aria-label]):not([class*='fa-']) {
font-family: "Operator Pro" !important;
}I was really pleased when Stack Overflow switched to system fonts [0] and hoped this would be a trend. With system fonts there is less cognitive load going from app to app. The font stays out of your way and serves its purpose best: presenting textual information. Here we have the opposite: Twitter decided that tweet bodies should perform a marketing function. They sacrificed utility for brand cohesiveness. I underst…
The 'brand' needs to differentiate, though. And if Facebook's empire does it, so must Twitter. It seems like when you're VC-backed and get to a certain size, one of the items on the checklist is "design custom font that looks like every other VC-backed platform's custom font, but is slightly different." Didn't Dropbox also make their own font?
I solved this by adding this rule to uBlock: ||http://abs.twimg.com/fonts/*.woff
Your filter didn't work for me with uBlock Origin, also I'm not sure that many people still use Twitter over unencrypted HTTP. This filter seems to work (tested with uBlock Origin 1.37.2): ||abs.twimg.com/fonts/chirp-*.woff$font
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly that means Twitter text is no longer fully portable. If you copy some text from Twitter, you specifically need Chirp to render it properly or else characters like their special logo character will be broken for all other fonts Because they're using the "Private Use Area" of the font improperly... Maybe I'm paranoid but I'm feeling like this is an intentional decision in order to push other fonts/found…
Not a lawyer, but if the Unicode Consortium even tried to add their logo to the specification, wouldn't Twitter have to actively sue to stop them or risk having their trademark genericized? Gut check: are there currently any trademarked symbols in Unicode? I can't think of any offhand, and it I find it difficult to imagine it happening for precisely that reason.
These are trademarked for other reasons than a company logo though, and I don't really see the point in including company logos (which might change or disappear tomorrow if they go bankrupt or are taken over by another company—and then what with the company logo in Unicode?).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox's "Don't allow websites to use custom fonts" option makes the Web feel much more cohesive and polished.
What does that do for fontawesome-style fonts (icons in the private area) that websites love to use instead of SVGs and text labels? I personally block fonts via uBlock Origin, which lets me allow them for the subset of websites I visit regularly enough that I'm okay with allowing fontawesome-style fonts.
I solved this by adding this rule to uBlock: ||http://abs.twimg.com/fonts/*.woff
Your filter didn't work for me with uBlock Origin, also I'm not sure that many people still use Twitter over unencrypted HTTP. This filter seems to work (tested with uBlock Origin 1.37.2): ||abs.twimg.com/fonts/chirp-*.woff$font