Heh, they both look fine to me. I really couldn't see the difference... I'm a sucker for good design, but it seems my font style is in the incompetent zone.
Brick. Webfonts that look good
11–20 of 73 posts
Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good
#12cool! how do I request additional typefaces and/or contribute?
Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good
#13cool! how do I request additional typefaces and/or contribute?
For now, open up an issue on GitHub.
I plan on extending the contributing page on the wiki with pull request instructions soon.
Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good
#14As far as I can see; iOS renders it just fine in both implementations
Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good
#15Heh, they both look fine to me. I really couldn't see the difference... I'm a sucker for good design, but it seems my font style is in the incompetent zone.
The most noticable differences (apart from the rendering) are the fi ligature in the title ("overfilled") and the Q feature (where the tail is extended past the first letter ("Quisque").
Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good
#16Comparison:
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 update their fonts to the newest versions. Crimson Text comes to mind.
Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good
#17Heh, they both look fine to me. I really couldn't see the difference... I'm a sucker for good design, but it seems my font style is in the incompetent zone.
I guess it depends on your setup. On Windows XP + ClearType + Chrome the difference is _huge_, it has a much better font smoothing.
Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good
#18Comparison: 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…
Thanks!
Unrelated note: I locked myself out of HN because I had noprocrast turned on...
Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good
#19I 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!
Re: Brick. Webfonts that look good
#20Heh, they both look fine to me. I really couldn't see the difference... I'm a sucker for good design, but it seems my font style is in the incompetent zone.
The most noticable differences (apart from the rendering) are the fi ligature in the title ("overfilled") and the Q feature (where the tail is extended past the first letter ("Quisque").
Kerning is also better on OS X (with Firefox, Chrome and Safari 6), but it's hard to notice on the demo pages because, for some reason, the text body in the Google Fonts page is three pixels lower than in the Brick version.
I glanced at the CSS but couldn't find the reason.