I think I dislike the Brick version just for that ugly Q thing that takes up half a word, but it seems less bold and clear as well on Chrome on a Mac here. I often hear the Mac OS causes this sort of thing anyway, though, where "improved" fonts don't look much better in other web projects as well.
Brick. Webfonts that look good
61–70 of 73 posts
Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good
#62Google fonts look better to me (Chrome, Windows)
Agree - especially the uppercase K and the lower case t. (Switching between between the two tabs in Chrome on Windows 7).
Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Out of curiosity, why are ligatures considered good? Ligatures are just single glyphs that represent multiple letters (or their equivalents). So for example the classic ‘fi’ pair is often turned into a ligature as I’ll discuss below, but the ampersand symbol ‘&’ is also a ligature (it originally came from the Latin word et , meaning “and”, although in many fonts today a much more stylised form is used). In languages…
> this left the typesetter an unwelcome choice between moving the letters further apart (creating an awkward space in the lower half) or keeping them close together (creating a dense area or even touching/overlapping symbols in the upper half).
i just want to clarify that when it came to classic printing, the problem was much more pragmatic than aesthetic. The top of the f actually extended beyond the horizontal bounds of its sort[1]. If you didn't use a ligature, you risked damaging either your /f or your /i, but almost certainly you'd notice it when the line didn't pack flush. The the ligature was partly aesthetic, but it existed historically to make the act of printing work easily.
Now that kerning is better supported, 'historical ligatures' are something of a luxury, which is why they're still an opt-in feature in opentype fonts (you can see this distinction, btw, in the `rlig`, `dlig`, `liga`, `clig` and `hlig` opentype features[2]), except for brick, which is opinionated about these things.
[1]: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Metal_type_kerning.sv... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_typographic_features
Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good
#64I think I dislike the Brick version just for that ugly Q thing that takes up half a word, but it seems less bold and clear as well on Chrome on a Mac here. I often hear the Mac OS causes this sort of thing anyway, though, where "improved" fonts don't look much better in other web projects as well.
You can disable swashes with a line of CSS:
`font-feature-settings: "swsh" off;`
Of course you'll need to add vendor prefixes.
Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good
#65I like what you're doing, anything to improve typography on the web makes the whole experience better no matter what the design. Is there any way I can use JavaScript to pick swatches or set options like the type panel in illustrator?
The features available in the OpenType panel should also be available through CSS's font-feature-settings property: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/font-featur...
Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good
#66Only woff means no support for IE8 and the Android browser (That being said, this information should be explicitly presented (even highlighted) on the site, IMO.
Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good
#67Only woff means no support for IE8 and the Android browser ( That being said, this information should be explicitly presented (even highlighted) on the site, IMO.
I'll put that in the GitHub usage wiki page.
Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good
#68I thought you meant this first - http://mozilla.github.io/brick.
Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity, why are ligatures considered good? Ligatures are just single glyphs that represent multiple letters (or their equivalents). So for example the classic ‘fi’ pair is often turned into a ligature as I’ll discuss below, but the ampersand symbol ‘&’ is also a ligature (it originally came from the Latin word et , meaning “and”, although in many fonts today a much more stylised form is used). In languages…
> this left the typesetter an unwelcome choice between moving the letters further apart (creating an awkward space in the lower half) or keeping them close together (creating a dense area or even touching/overlapping symbols in the upper half). i just want to clarify that when it came to classic printing, the problem was much more pragmatic than aesthetic. The top of the f actually extended beyond the horizontal boun…
Nah, I think they're just enabled here by default to show them off. You can fiddle with them with CSS3 font-feature-settings properties: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/font-featur...
Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this left the typesetter an unwelcome choice between moving the letters further apart (creating an awkward space in the lower half) or keeping them close together (creating a dense area or even touching/overlapping symbols in the upper half). i just want to clarify that when it came to classic printing, the problem was much more pragmatic than aesthetic. The top of the f actually extended beyond the horizontal boun…
Nah, I think they're just enabled here by default to show them off. You can fiddle with them with CSS3 font-feature-settings properties: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/font-featur...
In a way, yes. All settings can be controlled through CSS, so tweak to your liking!