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

Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

fonts.bunny.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 346 posts

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#281

Post by lolinder »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #278
lolinder wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's laziness. My conscious brain knows that it's anachronistic, but I still have the instinct to use a CDN for the shared caching between sites. Obviously, browser privacy changes mean that isn't a valid reason any more, but for me the instinct is still there.

Sites will setup a CDN to serve their own custom assets, but fonts? nope not doable. It's 100% laziness.

I'm not talking about setting up a CDN for custom assets, I'm talking about using something like jsdelivr or Google Fonts. Back in the day using those was a "best practice" because most people would (in theory) already have whatever font/library you're using cached. A lot of people, myself included, still have that as a habit that takes conscious effort to avoid falling into.

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#282

Post by hackernewds »

zarzavat wrote: post #15
politelemon wrote: post #4

On the font pages, they use this as the example sentence: > The quick brown bunny jumps over the lazy dog. While the site is trying to be quirky and cute, replacing 'fox' with 'bunny' doesn't showcase what 'f' and 'x' look like.

Wrote a quick Python script to explore alternatives. The best I found with two words was: - The quick brown bunny jumps over the lazy podgy fox. If you want to do it with one word you can do: - The quick brown bunny jumps over the oversexualized dragonfly.

This is why AI needs moderation

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#283

Post by hackernewds »

zarzavat wrote: post #15
politelemon wrote: post #4

On the font pages, they use this as the example sentence: > The quick brown bunny jumps over the lazy dog. While the site is trying to be quirky and cute, replacing 'fox' with 'bunny' doesn't showcase what 'f' and 'x' look like.

Wrote a quick Python script to explore alternatives. The best I found with two words was: - The quick brown bunny jumps over the lazy podgy fox. If you want to do it with one word you can do: - The quick brown bunny jumps over the oversexualized dragonfly.

They're called pangrams

> Two driven jocks help fax my big quiz. Pack my box with five dozen liquor jugs. The five boxing wizards jump quickly. Bright vixens jump; dozy fowl quack. Jackdaws love my big sphinx of quartz. John quickly extemporized five tow bags. Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#284

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

One of the numerous advantages of of text-only www, as seen through a text-only browser, is that CSS and Javascript do not matter.

As a www user, unless I am filing GDPR complaints against websites using Google Fonts under default configuration, i.e., served from Google computers, , I have no reason to care what fonts a website is using.

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#285

Post by manigandham »

rmbyrro wrote: post #257
hannob wrote: post #31

I find it really strange where some privacy debates have gone wrong, and this is a perfect example. It's basically a form of "don't trust them, better trust us, also we're in a country with better privacy laws". Which is an imperfect solution at best, and given that I have no idea who bunny.net is it's a questionable one at best. If you embed a font hosted somewhere else you expose some of your user data to them. Now…

Can someone point out a good reason for not downloading the font files and serving them directly from your CDN or servers, without any calls to third-parties in your HTML?

No great reason. Google occasionally optimizes the CSS delivery along with browser features (like in Chrome releases) where only certain files (and now only parts of files) are downloaded for the fonts.

But with HTTP2+, serving from your own domain has no performance impact unless you're limited by bandwidth or extreme latency, and often can improve things by avoiding another DNS/TLS/TCP connection.

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#286

Post by manigandham »

culi wrote: post #279
rmbyrro wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone point out a good reason for not downloading the font files and serving them directly from your CDN or servers, without any calls to third-parties in your HTML?

Wouldn't initial page load be affected? On the user side this only really happens on the very first load when the font isn't cache'd but this might affect SEO bots more?

It makes no difference other than download/parse performance. You have to weigh the latency/bandwidth of your origin vs that of Google's CDN and the extra connections.

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#287

Post by manigandham »

Pointless to move from one CDN to another for this. Also their performance is rather poor and about 10x higher latency compared to Google fonts.

If your origin is already fast and/or fronted with your own CDN the self-host and serve the fonts directly under you own domain. Trivial work with better security and performance.

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#290

Post by zerocrates »

chrismorgan wrote: post #250
zerocrates wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most actual versions of this kind of thing out in the wild have Roboto; what's your reasoning for wanting to exclude it? "Inferior"?

Superfluous: it’s there for Android, but I believe that sans-serif will normally resolve to that anyway. (I’m not certain about that, and can’t confirm it as I don’t have ready access to Chrome on Android but I got the impression some years ago that Chrome on Android uses the system font, which is Roboto. But even apart from that, the general idea is “stop specifying specific fonts and let the browser do its thing an…

I see.

I suppose the reasoning behind having it might be that Android devices typically also have one of the fonts that appears lower in the stack, but before sans-serif... though that's not as likely if you're using a much smaller stack (also it's already quite near the end so... not sure why its typically used... could indeed be just trying to opt out of some manufacturers' undesirable alternative defaults, maybe).

Post reply on HN