51–60 of 191 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Practically there's no difference between a browser that lazily downloads builtin fonts, and a global URL for a font file across websites with an extremely long TTL. And you don't want the browsers to be even more bloated than they already are!
> font file across websites with an extremely long TTL. Caches are no longer shared across domains because doing so leads to privacy leaks: https://www.jefftk.com/p/shared-cache-is-going-away
it should link to the font so we can see them
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If google embedded the top fonts in the browser this wouldn’t be an issue. I don’t understand why the font selection in browsers is so limited.
So many things about the web would be better if browsers shipped basic functionality. I cringe when I think about how many petabytes of jQuery has been sent over the wire over the years.
HTML5 as a living standard brings the majority of the needs that used to be served by plugins – interactivity, dynamic pages, two-way communications, multimedia.
WebSockets provide for realtime communications with the browser, something again not possible without 3rd-party plugins.
So, what you are saying is in fact happening. But that doesn't mean it's not an issue with sliding goalposts. It's just that it doesn't happen as quickly as we all may like it, but that's because "basic functionality" is a constantly moving target with different definitions depending on who asks.
I was part of the team that founded this, about 10 years ago if memory serves. I'm still loosely involved, though no longer at Google. Inconsolata was one of the 20 fonts for the original launch, and we're now in the process of launching it as a variable font, with both width and weight axes. I'm also getting funding from them for Rust-based font tools. Feel free to AMA, though no guarantees I'll have good answers.
How much data traffic could google save if it would just bundle all fonts with chrome?
Looks like Macs have roughly a 17% share of the windows + mac total requests. The overall market share per wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_share_of_personal_compu...) is something like 7% for Apple.
Fonts are probably used by most "normal" computer users in some way so I wonder where that difference comes from
- windows breaks faster and must be replaced more often, increasing the number of sold windows systems per year
- windows users use computers differently? Must be a pretty big thing to cause such a difference
- more windows systems not connected to the internet?
I kinda doubt that the typical enterprise windows setup with strict firewall rules etc. will have a meaningful impact on web fonts and IE 6+ seems to support google fonts (https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq#what_browsers_are_su...)
Any ideas?
I was part of the team that founded this, about 10 years ago if memory serves. I'm still loosely involved, though no longer at Google. Inconsolata was one of the 20 fonts for the original launch, and we're now in the process of launching it as a variable font, with both width and weight axes. I'm also getting funding from them for Rust-based font tools. Feel free to AMA, though no guarantees I'll have good answers.
What’s the rule of thumb on file size ... is 1 variable font smaller than 1 normal font? Or is it more like 1 variable font is smaller than 3 normal fonts combined (eg bold, italic, regular).
The closest I could find was Google Search Appliance but I wouldn't think that is applicable to these stats.
How to track everyone, everywhere.
Answers? Oh, I don't have them, I am just pointing out the problem.