The modern bloatware web where 1.7 seconds is considered fast. Good article though, great research effort.
> The specific profile was a Samsung Galaxy S4 over 3G.
1.7 seconds is pretty reasonable for a 7 year-old phone on 3G.
The Fastest Google Fonts
51–60 of 152 posts
Re: The Fastest Google Fonts
#52Just use the built-in fonts. Use a good fallback list so each platform gets a good option. Specifying custom fonts is largely a waste of bandwidth for a very marginal improvement in aesthetic. The people who care most are the ones making the decision to use that font. The solution, tritely, is they should stop caring about the little details that much. The bigger details are usually what move the needle. Don't get st…
What an absolutely stupid response to this. Of course, just use something that people would already have, 5head. Let me just ask the designer on my team to stop using anything other than Arial and Times New Roman. If a typical HN reader had their way, every single webpage on the internet would be text-only, with monospace font, and an RSS feed.
Let me also chime in and say this would be awesome!
Re: The Fastest Google Fonts
#53Would it bloat Chrome significantly if Google included their web fonts in the browser? And, you know... the other browsers can actually download them? I know it doesn't seem like fair play, but... I'm surprised they haven't done it yet.
Can't track the usage this way, though.
Re: The Fastest Google Fonts
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
You said it yourself: Users are viewing your site on devices with totally different screen sizes, different resolutions, on different platforms, with displays of varying brightnesses, glare, viewing angles, color spaces, and in environments of varying levels of lighting. Given these constraints, it's not possible to get a consistent look-and-feel. So don't waste resources trying. You'll create more problems than you'…
But it is possible to get a consistent look and feel for fonts, by using web fonts.
I feel like we need some clarification about what "consistent" means here. If we're talking about having the typography shown to user A look exactly the same as that shown to user B, why does that matter? (And why do the major font rendering differences between Windows and macOS not matter?)
If we're talking about having the typography on user A's phone look the same as on user A's desktop, that seems a bit more reasonable, but the rest of the UI is necessarily going to be drastically different save for perhaps the color scheme.
Or is the "consistency" that matters here about making sure the website is pervasively using the same typography as the advertisements?
Re: The Fastest Google Fonts
#55Would it bloat Chrome significantly if Google included their web fonts in the browser? And, you know... the other browsers can actually download them? I know it doesn't seem like fair play, but... I'm surprised they haven't done it yet.
Can't track the usage this way, though.
Not sure if it applies to fonts too but https://decentraleyes.org
Re: The Fastest Google Fonts
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
You said it yourself: Users are viewing your site on devices with totally different screen sizes, different resolutions, on different platforms, with displays of varying brightnesses, glare, viewing angles, color spaces, and in environments of varying levels of lighting. Given these constraints, it's not possible to get a consistent look-and-feel. So don't waste resources trying. You'll create more problems than you'…
> So don't waste resources trying. You'll create more problems than you'll solve. This doesn't follow. It's an argument for "put black text on a white background and call it a day because this is too hard". People don't pay money for that. Web fonts solve an entire class of problems unrelated to whether the user is standing in the sunshine or not. > Nobody tests their web fonts as thoroughly as the default fonts have…
I was talking about wordpress.com, not Wordpress blog themes or wordpress.org. Of course the themes are going to go wild and use every possible browser API to customize their appearance. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.
I'm surprised you're talking about knock-off fonts, because I think it argues against your position. The portion of users who have installed crappy knock-off fonts is far smaller than the portion of users on slow internet connections (such mobile users), or the users annoyed by the re-flow, or those who run into bugs in the web fonts themselves. Apple, Wired, and Medium have all shipped web fonts that look like garbage on Windows.[1] They didn't notice these bugs for years because they simply don't test on Windows.
So web fonts cause more annoyances and bugs for the majority of users to slightly improve the experience of a tiny fraction of users who have misconfigured their systems. Do you also write code that defends against buggy browser extensions? At some point you have to accept that the user is responsible for their own device. I'm fine admitting that if a user has the gumption to install custom fonts, they also need to be knowledgeable enough to choose good ones.
1. https://medium.com/@ValidScience/two-mysterious-web-font-bug...
Re: The Fastest Google Fonts
#57Just use the built-in fonts. Use a good fallback list so each platform gets a good option. Specifying custom fonts is largely a waste of bandwidth for a very marginal improvement in aesthetic. The people who care most are the ones making the decision to use that font. The solution, tritely, is they should stop caring about the little details that much. The bigger details are usually what move the needle. Don't get st…
There seems to be a reply like this at the top of every font-related thread on HN. I often wonder whether it's coming from designer/developers or from end users. Web fonts aren't popular just because they're pretty. They continue to be used everywhere because they offer a consistency that's impossible to get otherwise. With a plethora of mobile devices and desktop environments, you can't get a consistent look-and-fee…
Worry more about your text fitting on the screen even when users increase font size, and less about your brand's "look and feel"
Re: The Fastest Google Fonts
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
There seems to be a reply like this at the top of every font-related thread on HN. I often wonder whether it's coming from designer/developers or from end users. Web fonts aren't popular just because they're pretty. They continue to be used everywhere because they offer a consistency that's impossible to get otherwise. With a plethora of mobile devices and desktop environments, you can't get a consistent look-and-fee…
It's coming from users, of course. If you give a designer a knob, they will tweak it. End users don't care if they get Arial, Helvetica, Helvetica Neue or system sans-serif -- except in the case where they set it up themselves, and they're rather upset that you aren't using their preferred versions. But that's OK too, because those end users are almost as rare as designers. All the inconsistency problems you're notin…
Is rather have weird fonts than a site that curses and screams at me.
Re: The Fastest Google Fonts
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it is possible to get a consistent look and feel for fonts, by using web fonts.
I feel like we need some clarification about what "consistent" means here. If we're talking about having the typography shown to user A look exactly the same as that shown to user B, why does that matter? (And why do the major font rendering differences between Windows and macOS not matter?) If we're talking about having the typography on user A's phone look the same as on user A's desktop, that seems a bit more reas…
> If we're talking about having the typography shown to user A look exactly the same as that shown to user B, why does that matter?
Well, I suppose that's a valid question, but it's moving the goalposts. We were talking about having consistent fonts, and I'm claiming it's absolutely possible by using web fonts (after all, that's the reason web fonts exist).
Re: The Fastest Google Fonts
#60Would it bloat Chrome significantly if Google included their web fonts in the browser? And, you know... the other browsers can actually download them? I know it doesn't seem like fair play, but... I'm surprised they haven't done it yet.
Can't track the usage this way, though.
Sure they can, just get Chrome to notify Google whenever a site uses one of the pre-downloaded webfonts.
Chrome is pretty chatty with Google; you probably wouldn't notice the extra traffic from these notifications.