I really appreciate that this site uses interesting quotes rather than lorem ipsum. It makes it less boring to trawl through different fonts.
Beautiful web type: highlighting the best of the Google web fonts directory
21–30 of 45 posts
Re: Beautiful web type: highlighting the best of the Google web fonts directory
#22Very nice list! I recently also wrote on this topic: http://sachagreif.com/google-webfonts-that-dont-suck/
Nice list! But I feel you may have overlooked some other great google web fonts.
For example, Open Sans and Arimo are two good Sans fonts created by the awesome Steve Matteson. I am currently using Arimo for my new project, and it s a nice replacement for the vanilla Arial/Helvetica [Neue].
Re: Beautiful web type: highlighting the best of the Google web fonts directory
#23Very nice list! I recently also wrote on this topic: http://sachagreif.com/google-webfonts-that-dont-suck/
Nice list! But I feel you may have overlooked some other great google web fonts. For example, Open Sans and Arimo are two good Sans fonts created by the awesome Steve Matteson. I am currently using Arimo for my new project, and it s a nice replacement for the vanilla Arial/Helvetica [Neue].
Oh man, don't use Arimo, or its identical twin Liberation Sans. It is to Arial what Arial is to Helvetica; a metrics-compatible replacement that tries to do its own thing and winds up just awkward. The stupid little serif on J annoys me to no end, and all the capitals look almost like small-caps compared to the lower-case.
By contrast, Open Sans is lovely, go nuts with it. :)
Re: Beautiful web type: highlighting the best of the Google web fonts directory
#241 web page 22 HTTP requests 442.61KB transferred Thankfully we're not facing an increasing use of mobile devices on high latency networks. Oh. Platform and browser defaults have come so far that nowadays my preferred font stack is this: font-family: sans-serif;
Most sites aren't going to be demoing a bunch of different fonts like this. They'd likely pick one for headers and one for copy.
I agree. On that same note, I would stay away from using a web font in your body. It'll render slow on smart phones if you have a fairly lenthy article. Not only that, it may not render as crisp, therefore causing a bad reading experience.
Re: Beautiful web type: highlighting the best of the Google web fonts directory
#25So what are the first two fonts? That's frustrating they're not named.
Helpful hint: you can check out all of the page's css using the inspector. For this case you can see that what font-family is declared, and then reference it on google. Using this technique you can add styles on the fly to your sites and check them out as you are designing.
Re: Beautiful web type: highlighting the best of the Google web fonts directory
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice list! But I feel you may have overlooked some other great google web fonts. For example, Open Sans and Arimo are two good Sans fonts created by the awesome Steve Matteson. I am currently using Arimo for my new project, and it s a nice replacement for the vanilla Arial/Helvetica [Neue].
Oh man, don't use Arimo, or its identical twin Liberation Sans. It is to Arial what Arial is to Helvetica; a metrics-compatible replacement that tries to do its own thing and winds up just awkward. The stupid little serif on J annoys me to no end, and all the capitals look almost like small-caps compared to the lower-case. By contrast, Open Sans is lovely, go nuts with it. :)
Thanks for the feedback :D
I need a good alternative to Arial. Do you have any other recommendations from google web fonts?
Re: Beautiful web type: highlighting the best of the Google web fonts directory
#271 web page 22 HTTP requests 442.61KB transferred Thankfully we're not facing an increasing use of mobile devices on high latency networks. Oh. Platform and browser defaults have come so far that nowadays my preferred font stack is this: font-family: sans-serif;
Most sites aren't going to be demoing a bunch of different fonts like this. They'd likely pick one for headers and one for copy.
Also, they can be combined into one HTTP request.
Re: Beautiful web type: highlighting the best of the Google web fonts directory
#28Why do fonts look like ants chipped away some pixels in chrome/win7? They look better in Firefox but I remember OSX looking better still, can be wrong about that though since I hadn't access to one in a long time. But fonts in Chrome are plain ugly, someone please turn on AA. FF on the left, Chrome on the right: http://i.imgur.com/SxlaT.png
You might be interested in gdipp -- after using OS X for a couple years I couldn't stand Windows font rendering, but this really does make it better.
Re: Beautiful web type: highlighting the best of the Google web fonts directory
#29Why do fonts look like ants chipped away some pixels in chrome/win7? They look better in Firefox but I remember OSX looking better still, can be wrong about that though since I hadn't access to one in a long time. But fonts in Chrome are plain ugly, someone please turn on AA. FF on the left, Chrome on the right: http://i.imgur.com/SxlaT.png
And yet on WinXP it's the inverse: http://i.imgur.com/fge34.png
Re: Beautiful web type: highlighting the best of the Google web fonts directory
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most sites aren't going to be demoing a bunch of different fonts like this. They'd likely pick one for headers and one for copy.
I agree. On that same note, I would stay away from using a web font in your body. It'll render slow on smart phones if you have a fairly lenthy article. Not only that, it may not render as crisp, therefore causing a bad reading experience.
"I would stay away from using a web font in your body. It'll render slow on smart phones"
Why is that? I thought the system fonts would be TrueType or OpenType, and so use the same renderer as web fonts. Not that I know much about the technical details of fonts; is it possible to optimize a font for ease of rendering?