Brick. Webfonts that look good • Hacker News Board

Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good

#41

Post by alfredxing » Sat, Mar 15, 2014, 11:48 PM UTC

kevinbowman wrote: post #36

alfredxing wrote: post #19

I want to give a big thank-you to the fine folks at Fastly ( http://www.fastly.com ) who generously agreed to host Brick on their great CDN network. They're big fans of open source!

I think that should be www.fastly.com ?

Yep. I'm still locked out with noprocrast so while I can add comments, I can't edit. 5 more minutes...

Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good

#42

Post by keeperofdakeys » Sat, Mar 15, 2014, 11:52 PM UTC

makmanalp wrote: post #16

Comparison: http://brick.im/preview/brick.html http://brick.im/preview/google.html On firefox on osx, I see: - better kerning (space between L and o in "Lorem") - better definition in some letters (like the l in "elit") - cool stuff like ligatures (f and i in "overfilled") - and swashes (the Q in "Quisque"). Great work! I'm consistently annoyed but how much stuff google fonts are missing and how slow they are to upda…

On firefox on linux, I see the opposite. The j's and t's in the title are too low, and there isn't enough space between the f and i.

http://imgur.com/a/5FTc8 (top is brick, sorry for the misalignment).

Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good

#43

Post by alfredxing » Sat, Mar 15, 2014, 11:59 PM UTC

keeperofdakeys wrote: post #42

makmanalp wrote: post #16

Comparison: http://brick.im/preview/brick.html http://brick.im/preview/google.html On firefox on osx, I see: - better kerning (space between L and o in "Lorem") - better definition in some letters (like the l in "elit") - cool stuff like ligatures (f and i in "overfilled") - and swashes (the Q in "Quisque"). Great work! I'm consistently annoyed but how much stuff google fonts are missing and how slow they are to upda…

On firefox on linux, I see the opposite. The j's and t's in the title are too low, and there isn't enough space between the f and i. http://imgur.com/a/5FTc8 (top is brick, sorry for the misalignment).

The "low" seems to be a Firefox thing; the f and i are supposed to be like that; it's a ligature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographic_ligature)!

Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good

#44

Post by krick » Sun, Mar 16, 2014, 12:06 AM UTC

Cool. But how does that stuff work? Are there any "typefonts for dummies" materials?

Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good

#45

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 16, 2014, 12:19 AM UTC

krick wrote: post #44

Cool. But how does that stuff work? Are there any "typefonts for dummies" materials?

[deleted]

Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good

#46

Post by alfredxing » Sun, Mar 16, 2014, 12:23 AM UTC

krick wrote: post #44

Cool. But how does that stuff work? Are there any "typefonts for dummies" materials?

A reference for custom fonts via @font-face: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@font-face

Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good

#47

Post by Buge » Sun, Mar 16, 2014, 12:23 AM UTC

On Windows Firefox "Vestibulum" is kerned the same between the fonts. Brick is a bit heavier and they both user subpixel rendering.

On Chrome, Brick kerns "Vestibulum" better. Brick is the same weight as Google. But Brick does not use subpixel rendering while Google does.

On both browsers there was no difference in the kerning of "Lorem".

Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good

#48

Post by ams6110 » Sun, Mar 16, 2014, 12:29 AM UTC

makmanalp wrote: post #16

Comparison: http://brick.im/preview/brick.html http://brick.im/preview/google.html On firefox on osx, I see: - better kerning (space between L and o in "Lorem") - better definition in some letters (like the l in "elit") - cool stuff like ligatures (f and i in "overfilled") - and swashes (the Q in "Quisque"). Great work! I'm consistently annoyed but how much stuff google fonts are missing and how slow they are to upda…

I don't see any difference whatsoever.

Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good

#49

Post by chengsun » Sun, Mar 16, 2014, 12:48 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #48

makmanalp wrote: post #16

Comparison: http://brick.im/preview/brick.html http://brick.im/preview/google.html On firefox on osx, I see: - better kerning (space between L and o in "Lorem") - better definition in some letters (like the l in "elit") - cool stuff like ligatures (f and i in "overfilled") - and swashes (the Q in "Quisque"). Great work! I'm consistently annoyed but how much stuff google fonts are missing and how slow they are to upda…

I don't see any difference whatsoever.

You'll need to allow brick.im if you have NoScript, because NoScript blocks web fonts.

Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good

#50

Post by esrauch » Sun, Mar 16, 2014, 2:09 AM UTC

makmanalp wrote: post #16

Comparison: http://brick.im/preview/brick.html http://brick.im/preview/google.html On firefox on osx, I see: - better kerning (space between L and o in "Lorem") - better definition in some letters (like the l in "elit") - cool stuff like ligatures (f and i in "overfilled") - and swashes (the Q in "Quisque"). Great work! I'm consistently annoyed but how much stuff google fonts are missing and how slow they are to upda…

Out of curiosity, why are ligatures considered good? I commonly notice them in print because it catches my eye and hinders my scanning. Is it just because I am adjusted to digital media that commonly lacks it and the surprise factor is outweighing some other benefit?