By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
459,403 Members | 1,275 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 459,403 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Font downloads

P: n/a
Why is there no standardized and well-working way for a web-page to
offer the font for download/embed it, in order to be displayed on the
page?
No matter what you think of the preferred font of a designer, many
web-sites offer an image of the text instead to "force" this font --
which certainly can't be the solution (it's a bit of a hassle to
maintain and create).
Jul 20 '05
Share this Question
Share on Google+
133 Replies


P: n/a
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Philipp Lenssen wrote:
Do you think most people make a conscious decision to have e.g. Times
New Roman as their default web-font?


"Most people" appear to trust Microsoft to make the right choice for
them. What conclusions would you draw from that, hmmm?
Jul 20 '05 #51

P: n/a
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Philipp Lenssen wrote:
How do you have the final veto if the site uses an image of text?
Click the option which turns off images. As I've heard ordinary
users saying to each other - the web developer toolbar isn't only for
web developers.


That will turn off *all* images and thus is not a good solution.
How do you override the
font in say the headline of the Onion's articles?
<http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4032>
Lynx says "Bad HTML!!!", and then displays:

[blank.gif]

The Onion A.V. Club | Store | Subscriptions | Books | Personals
Onion Premium Join Login Help
NEWSLETTERS CONTESTS

[blank.gif]

VOLUME 40 ISSUE 32 AMERICA'S FINEST NEWS SOURCE 11 AUGUST 2004
_________________ Search

Front Page News [Recent Issues____] [Jump To____________]


It looks almost usable to me, though I could do better.

Which substantive content am I missing?


Yeah, if you kill all design you are certainly getting to the
content... most people prefer not to kill all design on the web. And
most people wouldn't switch to Lynx just because the image is not their
preferred font. I don't say most people want headlines-as-image just so
they get the site's preferred font -- though some designers (and
developers) would argue it might be a necessity. What I'm saying is
that images-as-text is a real bad solution. I would prefer if some
groups got together and figured out a nice standard to make fonts
downloadable (of course, there would be an option to turn it off in
popular browsers).

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #52

P: n/a
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Philipp Lenssen wrote:
Do you think most people make a conscious decision to have e.g.
Times New Roman as their default web-font?


"Most people" appear to trust Microsoft to make the right choice for
them. What conclusions would you draw from that, hmmm?


But come on -- most of us are not designers, or into typography. And
most of us don't make a decision on which OS we work on (I don't -- I,
like most of us, happen to work at a company with standardized OS and
software). In any case I myself would consider myself web designer and
even I'm unsure about my reading speed at different line lengths,
different fonts, sans-serif vs serif etc. I do not feel the need to
override all sites with Arial, even though I find that easy to read. I
do expect a professional designer to deliver a good design (one which I
recognize the next time), and I expect a developer to make it
accessible and flexible. Certainly I as developer I'm compromising when
I include text as images (because it's not the ideal solution, because
the ideal solution isn't there). We do have image-components here that
convert text from XML on the fly but I'd still prefer a simpler way,
and one which wouldn't look funny while the page loads the image.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #53

P: n/a
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Philipp Lenssen wrote:
content... most people prefer not to kill all design on the web.
When did I ever say anything against "design on the web"? You're too
good at this to need to grasp for straw-man arguments!

/Some/ people don't have the option to use your visual design, as you
already know and accept. Neither do the indexing robots. I'm only
using Lynx here as a demonstration tool to exhibit what they might
get.
And most people wouldn't switch to Lynx just because the image is
not their preferred font.
You asked about including substantive content as images of a font. I
was under the impression that I was responding to that question. At
no point did I suggest that normal users would deliberately switch
from a graphical browser to Lynx (even if I occasionally do so myself,
that's not the point here).
I don't say most people want headlines-as-image just so
they get the site's preferred font -- though some designers (and
developers) would argue it might be a necessity.
So what /are/ you saying, really, above and beyond the fact that some
designers have priorities which are not only different from those of
their readers, or at least some of their readers - they might even be
antithetical to them?
What I'm saying is that images-as-text is a real bad solution.
I think that's one point on which we were never really in
disagreement, you know.
I would prefer if some groups got together and figured out a nice
standard to make fonts downloadable


Yes, I understood that. I'm not opposing it - I'm just commenting
that the idea is far from new, and is presumably known to anyone who
is involved in the technology, but it does not seem to be actively
progressed. Might it be that we could draw certain conclusions from
that?

Could it be (rough hypothesis) that those who demand to have such
close control over fonts are /mostly/ (yourself perhaps an honourable
exception) also those who demand to control so much else in the visual
field, that they would never be satisfied by the flexibility offered
by HTML with CSS? They'll already have ruled-out HTML for their
purposes, and defected to PDF, or flash etc.
Jul 20 '05 #54

P: n/a
In message <ZH*******************@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Lachlan
Hunt <la**********@lachy.id.au.invalid> writes
jake wrote:
This is the www -- the user gets to see exactly what the author is
offering *unless* he or she decides to disenfranchise themselves by
overriding the author's decisions.
And how many do? Not many, I'd bet.


I do, quite often, especially when someone uses awful colours (like
MSDN's IE Blog — I can't stand reading that awful blue text in this
post [1]!), and also for any page that is unreadable with stylesheets
enabled (like this twit I wrote about [2]) because it was designed it
to work only with IEs bugs. Not only that, but I sometimes disable
images, animations, javascript and other annoying content. I've also
set up a user style sheet that stops the <blink> and <marquee> tags,
among many other things.

This ALA article, “Print it Your Way” [3], discusses how to create
and use a user stylesheet to change the way a document gets printed.
Chris Pederick offers a userContent.css file [4] to help users detect
javascript links and links with a target opening a new window. So, in
conclusion, yes, there are many people who do override author styls sheets.

[1] http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2004/07/30/202589.aspx
[2] http://www.lachy.id.au/blogs/nettwits/2004/07/what-mess
[3] http://www.alistapart.com/articles/printyourway/
[4] http://www.chrispederick.com/work/firefox/


Well, yes -- I do something similar myself.

I tend to browse with IE and see the site as the author intended.

But just occasionally, the design and I don't get on (especially if
there's lots of micro-font text and I can't increase the size of the
text to something readable).

In this case I do tend to switch over to Opera which is already set up
with my own preferred (minimal) stylesheet and with tables disabled.

However. That's me.

Having worked for some large corporations and government institutions
I'm also aware that the vast majority of users don't even know (or care,
for that matter) that they can juggle with the browser settings.

regards.

--
Jake
Jul 20 '05 #55

P: n/a
Mad Bad Rabbit <ma**********@yahoo.com> wrote in news:-pudnW8fisr374TcRVn-
jg@texas.net:
Alas, in all current browsers I've tested, "SUBMIT" buttons
don't work as one might hope. Even if I wrap them inside of
deprecated <blink> tags, they won't hypnotize site visitors
or force them to bow before my will and use my desired fonts.

I'm still USE VERDANA! testing with OBEY NOW! subliminal texts
and animated spiral images, but so far without any success...


You need to use animated spiral _fractal_ images!

And for any geek visitors that know ASCII, you can use straightforward
modification of each pixel's three lowest bits to form ASCII characters
(with no obfuscation scheme) and send subliminal messages that way.

--
Anqdc>
Jul 20 '05 #56

P: n/a
In message <qg*******************@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Lachlan
Hunt <la**********@lachy.id.au.invalid> writes
jake wrote:
Considering the number of IE users, I'd suggest that Microsoft
embedding technology is as close to a standard as your likely to see
for a long time to come.


Ok, so does that make <marquee> a standard element also? What about
all those other presentational attributes MSIE introduced also, like
leftmargin, topmargin, or whatever the hell they are? So, you're
saying it's ok to use proprietary technologies, so long as 90% of the
market supports it, who cares about interoperability, accessibility,
usability and whatever else is destroyed by using IE's proprietary
technology in other UAs.


When it comes to font embedding the answer has to be 'yes' -- it is a
'de facto' standard, even if only amongst IE users.

I can't really see that there's a problem here.

If the browser supports the technology, then you get to see the authors
intended design i.e. the font usage.

If the browser doesn't, and you don't already have the font installed,
then it's just going to use whatever other font is suggested -- or the
user prefers.

So, some people win -- nobody loses ;-)

regards.

BTW. 'Accessibilty' gains -- you can increase the size of the text which
you can't easily do with a text image.

--
Jake
Jul 20 '05 #57

P: n/a
In message <2n************@uni-berlin.de>, Philipp Lenssen
<in**@outer-court.com> writes
jake wrote:
In message <MP************************@news.intergate.com>, Curious
Angel <by*******@usa.net> writes
> In article <2n************@uni-berlin.de>, in**@outer-court.com
> says...
>> Why is there no standardized and well-working way for a web-page to
>> offer the font for download/embed it, in order to be displayed on the >> page?


Using Microsoft's font downloading technology you can make sure that
the vast majority of your viewers gets to see your site as you
intended it to be seen.


I tried that. The results were sub-optimal.


Well, it shouldn't be any different to that which you see on your screen
with your locally-installed fonts. If it doesn't look good locally, it
won't improve any as an 'embedded' font.
OK, I can live with the
fact I have to locate and download ancient MS tools nobody seems to use
or support,
Ancient? February 2003 isn't that ancient is it?
and I can (barely) live with the fact this will create an
embedded font-package *limited* to the letters present on the page you
want to convert (how can this be?
It can be -- because you asked for page sub-setting ..... so you got a
subset.

If you'd have asked for 'no sub-setting' you'd have got the full font
;-)

(If in doubt, I always read the manual)
we translate web pages *after* the
HTML and CSS are finished, via XML -- we don't know the actual
letters!) -- but the font was not looking very good, especially the
kerning was messed.
Interesting. Do you have an example available?

[snip]

regards

Jul 20 '05 #58

P: n/a
jake wrote:
Brian writes
jake wrote:
It's *your* site; *you* decide how your audience sees it.
Not on the www, I'm afraid. The user has final veto.


This is the www


No, this is usenet.
the user gets to see exactly what the author is offering *unless*
he or she decides to disenfranchise themselves by overriding the
author's decisions.
In other words, the user has "final veto". I'm not quite sure how they
are "disenfranchising" themselves though. Did you lose your place in
the thesaurus?
And how many do?


(a) lots
(b) very few
(c) only 1
(d) 0
(e) I cannot answer the question with the information provided.

The answer? (e), of course.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #59

P: n/a
Philipp Lenssen wrote:
I do not believe this matters in terms of search engines, which
understand alt,


The most used, Google, does not. Googlebot only indexes alt text
if it's inside an <a> element. Otherwise, it seems to be ignored
entirely.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #60

P: n/a
Philipp Lenssen wrote:
Brian wrote:
Not on the www, I'm afraid. The user has final veto.
How do you have the final veto if the site uses an image of text?


In my browser, like this:

Tools>Options>Web Features>Load Images>uncheck
Yeah sure, there might be many tricks for CSS and HTML and browser
gurus.
Turning off images is not some arcane web trick.
I'm talking about the average user here. How do you override the
font in say the headline of the Onion's articles?
<http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4032>


I just went there. The headings were in my default serif font.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #61

P: n/a
Alan J. Flavell wrote:

re: <http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4032>
Lynx says "Bad HTML!!!", and then displays:
Ha ha! So it does! What a great browser. :-)

[Lynx screen shot snipped]
It looks almost usable to me, though I could do better.
Ditto for Firefox, images disabled.
Which substantive content am I missing?


None, AFAICS.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #62

P: n/a
In message <Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31>, Jukka K.
Korpela <jk******@cs.tut.fi> writes
jake <ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Well, it's really quite a simple process.
Really?


Yes. Really.
You seem to have an ongoing campaign for WEFT in different
newsgroups.
Really? I don't think the subject has arisen recently except in
alt.html.
In this group, you are clearly off-topic. WEFT is not HTML.
Hmmm. You seem to react badly when you make statements such as ."... the
technology is confusing and error-prone..." and then get asked to
substantiate your claims.

Well, you certainly seem to have a bit of a problem with WEFT, don't
you? Still, it's pretty much on-topic as we're discussing font
downloading/embedding.
You then use a Microsoft utility (WEFT) to look at a page (or pages)
of HTML and to provide you with a list of fonts you've used.
And stay tuned to trouble if you try anything real, as I have mentioned
in the alt.html thread.


... and without being able to say why, as is your usual approach.
I also repeatedly mentioned that you repeatedly failed to provide _any_
demonstration of your (or anyone else's for that matter) actual use of
WEFT for Web authoring. You posted a single URL that pointed to a trivial
demo with no real content (and, not surprisingly, typographically poor
use of fonts).
The page is a perfect example of using the technology. You seem to have
this strange idea that the technology isn't valid unless it somehow fits
in with what you think the content should be.
Instead of posting the URL of your real site utilizing
WEFT, you (not unexpectedly) reacted by moving to other matters such as
personal accusations.
Whereas you claim ".......Did I mention that the few authors who use
WEFT seem to use it in an attempt to make rather poor or, at best,
irrelevant font choices? ......" but, despite a number of requests, you
failed to post a single example to back up your claim

Sorry, my friend, but if you want to take this further, then you take it
back to alt.html -- no sense in boring the good folks here with your
personal problems.

regards.

--
Jake
Jul 20 '05 #63

P: n/a
Philipp Lenssen wrote:
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
Philipp Lenssen wrote:
How do you have the final veto if the site uses an image of text?
Click the option which turns off images.


That will turn off *all* images and thus is not a good solution.


That's not for you to decide. I'm on dialup. More often than not,
turning off *all* images is precisely the right solution. Let me say
that first part again: more often than not, meaning in more than half
the web sites I visit.

But you bring up a good point. If you try to force your wishes on the
visitor, the visitor may react in ways that are undesirable. Which would
you (or your client) rather: fonts exactly as you want them for some
visitors, but no images whatsoever for others; or flexibility in design?
You may protest that that's exactly what you want to avoid, but if I
have to download a font just for your site, the overhead could be
greater than images as text, so the choice remains. The more you try to
force things, the more they break when the visitor rebels or the
situation is simply one you hadn't anticipated.
How do you override the font in say the headline of the Onion's
articles? <http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4032>

[Lynx screenshot snipped]
Which substantive content am I missing?

Yeah, if you kill all design you are certainly getting to the
content...


Content is what seems to drive the www. You seem bitter about that
fact, I'm not sure why.
most people prefer not to kill all design on the web.
You must run with a different crowd. I never hear people marvel over
layout or color. They marvel over the ability to answer trivia questions
with a simple Google search, for find song lyrics quickly, or get a
recipe for kale soup, or...
And most people wouldn't switch to Lynx just because the image is not
their preferred font.
Agreed. They are far more likely to turn off images in whatever
graphical browser they're already using. At least, that's what I do.
images-as-text is a real bad solution.
A solution to a problem that seems invented by authors, not perceived by
visitors. Since you seem to enjoy talking about "most people" and the
"average person", here's one: most people don't care what font the
headline is in.

By all means, make suggestions via css. I certainly do. But I also don't
lose any sleep worrying that visitors somewhere might not be seeing the
fonts I selected.
I would prefer if some groups got together and figured out a nice
standard to make fonts downloadable


I just don't see the need. And, being on dialup, I don't want the extra
overhead.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #64

P: n/a
In message <10*************@corp.supernews.com>, Brian
<us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> writes
jake wrote:
Brian writes
jake wrote:

It's *your* site; *you* decide how your audience sees it.
Not on the www, I'm afraid. The user has final veto.

This is the www


No, this is usenet.

Funny, I thought pages of HTML get sent to browsers over the WWW --
clearly I've been thinking wrong for a long time. Thanks for clarifying
that ;-)
the user gets to see exactly what the author is offering *unless*
he or she decides to disenfranchise themselves by overriding the
author's decisions.


In other words, the user has "final veto". I'm not quite sure how they
are "disenfranchising" themselves though. Did you lose your place in
the thesaurus?


Sorry, do you want me to use shorter words? You've only to ask, if it's
a problem for you.
And how many do?


(a) lots
(b) very few
(c) only 1
(d) 0
(e) I cannot answer the question with the information provided.

The answer? (e), of course.

Based on personal experience, I'd suggest (b)

But, of course, YMMV.

--
Jake
Jul 20 '05 #65

P: n/a
jake wrote:
Sorry, do you want me to use shorter words?
No, you've shown what you have to offer quite clearly.
You've only to ask, if it's a problem for you.
You've only to ask, if you want to get plonked.
Brian wrote
(a) lots
(b) very few
(c) only 1
(d) 0
(e) I cannot answer the question with the information provided.

The answer? (e), of course.

jake wrote: Based on personal experience, I'd suggest (b)


"Personal experience" is suspect as an argument. Which is why the
answer is (e): there is not enough information available to
intelligently answer the question.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #66

P: n/a
jake <ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:7t**************@gododdin.demon.co.uk:
In message <Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31>, Jukka K.
Korpela <jk******@cs.tut.fi> writes

I also repeatedly mentioned that you repeatedly failed to provide _any_
demonstration of your (or anyone else's for that matter) actual use of
WEFT for Web authoring. You posted a single URL that pointed to a trivial
demo with no real content (and, not surprisingly, typographically poor
use of fonts).


The page is a perfect example of using the technology. You seem to have
this strange idea that the technology isn't valid unless it somehow fits
in with what you think the content should be.


So the only ideas you have for using this technology is in demoing itself?
--
Anqdc>
Jul 20 '05 #67

P: n/a
"Philipp Lenssen" <in**@outer-court.com> wrote in news:2nu50iF4ku7iU3@uni-
berlin.de:
Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

The CSS properties which suggest fonts are not commands that must be
obeyed at all costs, and this is a feature of Web technology. Not a
limitation, a feature.

If you want "looks the same, every time", use Postscript, PDF, or some
similar format.


Nobody wants that. But with that argument, you might as well say *all*
CSS is a failure and belongs to PDF or something else.


Your logic is byzantine. Please explain.

--
Anqdc>
Jul 20 '05 #68

P: n/a
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Philipp Lenssen wrote:
I would prefer if some groups got together and figured out a nice
standard to make fonts downloadable


Could it be (rough hypothesis) that those who demand to have such
close control over fonts are /mostly/ (yourself perhaps an honourable
exception) also those who demand to control so much else in the visual
field, that they would never be satisfied by the flexibility offered
by HTML with CSS? They'll already have ruled-out HTML for their
purposes, and defected to PDF, or flash etc.


That seems unlikely to be the reason. I've read that copyright issues
are involved, and that seems to me to be a more reasonable explanation.

It's funny that so many of the regulars here, who time and time again
state that CSS is *optional*, oppose the *option* of using the font the
page author would like to use. Wouldn't this be equally optional, if
suggested through CSS? Those who don't like to see that font could
easily disable font downloading (assuming browsers would provide this
option), or override the specified font with one more to their liking.

Specifying (sorry, suggesting) fonts in CSS is so problematic at the
moment (largely due to the differing aspect values of fonts) that it is
almost unusable. Being able to supply, if needed, the authors preferred
font, in combination with an improved font-size-adjust property, would
IMHO alleviate some of those problems, without significantly hindering
the user that cares enough to want to change it.

(Oh, and although CSS offers flexibility to designers, in my personal
experience it is a lot harder to make a truly flexible page using CSS
than it is to make a really inflexible layout. Those who want the latter
have no reason to complain about CSS, IMHO.)

Gertjan.

--
Gertjan Klein <gk****@xs4all.nl>
Jul 20 '05 #69

P: n/a
In message <10*************@corp.supernews.com>, Brian
<us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> writes
jake wrote:
Sorry, do you want me to use shorter words?


No, you've shown what you have to offer quite clearly.
You've only to ask, if it's a problem for you.


You've only to ask, if you want to get plonked.

[snip]

Do as you wish, my friend. I somehow doubt that I'll lose much sleep
over it either way ;-)

regards.
--
Jake
Jul 20 '05 #70

P: n/a
In message <Xn**************************@130.133.1.4>, Sam Hughes
<hu****@rpi.edu> writes
jake <ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:7t**************@gododdin.demon.co.uk:
In message <Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31>, Jukka K.
Korpela <jk******@cs.tut.fi> writes

I also repeatedly mentioned that you repeatedly failed to provide _any_
demonstration of your (or anyone else's for that matter) actual use of
WEFT for Web authoring. You posted a single URL that pointed to a trivial
demo with no real content (and, not surprisingly, typographically poor
use of fonts).
The page is a perfect example of using the technology. You seem to have
this strange idea that the technology isn't valid unless it somehow fits
in with what you think the content should be.


So the only ideas you have for using this technology is in demoing itself?

And I said that ............. when, exactly?

It's up to the designer to decide whether he or she has any use for it.
Like Flash, VRML, or whatever, it's just another tool in the designers
tool-bag.

Personally, I think that it's nice to know that there's a functioning
technology there if I need to use it.

regards


--
Jake
Jul 20 '05 #71

P: n/a
jake <ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:Lf**************@gododdin.demon.co.uk:
In message <Xn**************************@130.133.1.4>, Sam Hughes
<hu****@rpi.edu> writes
So the only ideas you have for using this technology is in demoing
itself?

And I said that ............. when, exactly?


Maybe you don't understand what "use" means. To use something is to
garnish some utility out of it. I mean utility in the broadest sense.
You're using WEFT for the purpose of demoing WEFT. You claim that is a
perfect example of using the technology. What you _mean_ is that it is a
perfect example of how the technology works.

When it comes to the Web, what is important is what is useful to the
author, and what is useful to the visitor. An author may find utility in
having a Web page by making money or getting satisfaction by providing
information for the public good, for instance. A visitor may find
utility by getting information or entertainment of some sort.

Right now, the only example of using WEFT that I can think of is using it
as a demo of its abilities, until you can convince me otherwise.

So please show me and others a way in which WEFT provides some utility to
the author or the user, aside from the irrelevant utility of illusioning
the designer into thinking he's improved the design.

(Actually, I can think of another use of WEFT -- allowing previews of
copyrighted fonts. However, eot files can be converted to TrueType
(albeit missing various glyphs) if one wants to, and using images works
with more ubiquity.)

--
Anqdc>
Jul 20 '05 #72

P: n/a
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Gertjan Klein wrote:
It's funny that so many of the regulars here, who time and time again
state that CSS is *optional*, oppose the *option* of using the font the
page author would like to use.
Let me make two points very clear:

1. I have absolutely no objection *in principle* to the author
proposing fonts as an *option*, in the way that you are discussing

2. I will often point out *practical difficulties which result from
doing that*, especially in the browser-like operating system component
that "everybody" is said to be using instead of a web browser.

These difficulties involve, in general, relative sizing issues (the
most dramatic of which can be seen with Verdana); and in specific
cases, character repertoire issues (IE being especially problematic).

As a result, you may see me often counselling against using this
feature, *especially* when a challenging character repertoire is
involved. But that advice is offered entirely on practical grounds: I
have no difficulty at all with the *principle* of style proposals in
CSS.
Wouldn't this be equally optional, if
suggested through CSS? Those who don't like to see that font could
easily disable font downloading (assuming browsers would provide this
option), or override the specified font with one more to their liking.
I agree. At least, I don't disagree :-}
Specifying (sorry, suggesting)
"proposing" seems to be a good choice of a neutral term here, no?
fonts in CSS is so problematic at the moment (largely due to the
differing aspect values of fonts) that it is almost unusable. Being
able to supply, if needed, the authors preferred font, in
combination with an improved font-size-adjust property, would IMHO
alleviate some of those problems, without significantly hindering
the user that cares enough to want to change it.


Just so.
Jul 20 '05 #73

P: n/a
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Philipp Lenssen wrote:
I would prefer if some groups got together and figured out a nice
standard to make fonts downloadable
Yes, I understood that. I'm not opposing it - I'm just commenting
that the idea is far from new, and is presumably known to anyone who
is involved in the technology, but it does not seem to be actively
progressed. Might it be that we could draw certain conclusions from
that?


We might conclude several things:

- designers are happy when HTMLers include images of the fonts they
prefer (you know, mostly in the real world, designers are one group and
developers another, and the designer will want the font headline, and
the developer has to find a solution for that), most developers are too
lazy to push for yet another standard, especially when it would enhance
design control (suggestion/ option/ whatever)

- the W3C is focussing on the wrong issues at the moment

You see I don't conclude anything really from the fact that the web is
such a mess. We might conclude that valid HTML is really unnecessary
because most pages are invalid. (And heck yeah, certainly no one can
write tools that just rely on valid HTML to get whatever job done, so
they will end up writing their screen-scraping garbage-understanding
parsers... it's even happening to RSS right now, split up in a dozens
of substandards, some of them XML, many of them invalid when they get
served to you. But I digress...)
Could it be (rough hypothesis) that those who demand to have such
close control over fonts are mostly (yourself perhaps an honourable
exception) also those who demand to control so much else in the
visual field, that they would never be satisfied by the flexibility
offered by HTML with CSS? They'll already have ruled-out HTML for
their purposes, and defected to PDF, or flash etc.


Nah... the designer's I work with wouldn't want PDF just to push their
font. But yes, they want Flash (more than HTML). Flash means more
control... and of course, is not medium-neutral, and not in the spirit
of the web (the Berners-Lee thing) etc.

So, I come to think it's indeed a copyright issue.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #74

P: n/a
Brian wrote:
Philipp Lenssen wrote:

Yeah, if you kill all design you are certainly getting to the
content...


Content is what seems to drive the www. You seem bitter about that
fact, I'm not sure why.


I work as developer. I get a design. I implement this design. It's not
about wether I believe content is king, which I certainly do (I do
prefer the king to be dressed in somewhat fitting clothes -- this does
not include forcing a certain font, because on my personal sites I can
do with arial and times and what-not). It's about the design I have to
implement, and why there is a lack of meaningful ways to do this.

By all means, make suggestions via css.
Not an option. I *must* include the headline as font. I tried to
explain before. I'm getting paid for this, and it's certainly not a
moral issue where I'd say "I either include this as HTML text or get
fired". If I make a suggestion via CSS it will be ignored, because we
are using a company-specific font (like many other websites).
I would prefer if some groups got together and figured out a nice
standard to make fonts downloadable


I just don't see the need. And, being on dialup, I don't want the
extra overhead.


See, you could turn off the option, just like you can turn of images
(which you seem to prefer). You can even browse font-embedded pages
with Lynx, if there would ever be a good standard. Just like CSS.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #75

P: n/a
jake wrote:
In message <2n************@uni-berlin.de>, Philipp Lenssen
<in**@outer-court.com> writes
jake wrote:
In message <MP************************@news.intergate.com>, Curious
Angel <by*******@usa.net> writes
> In article <2n************@uni-berlin.de>, in**@outer-court.com
> says...
>> Why is there no standardized and well-working way for a web-page to >> >> offer the font for download/embed it, in order to
be displayed on >> the >> page?

Using Microsoft's font downloading technology you can make sure
that >> the vast majority of your viewers gets to see your site as you intended it to be seen.


I tried that. The results were sub-optimal.


Well, it shouldn't be any different to that which you see on your
screen with your locally-installed fonts. If it doesn't look good
locally, it won't improve any as an 'embedded' font.


It was slightly different from what Photoshop was showing, using the
same font. The difference was big enough for our designer to call it
off.
we translate web pages after the
HTML and CSS are finished, via XML -- we don't know the actual
letters!) -- but the font was not looking very good, especially the
kerning was messed.


Interesting. Do you have an example available?


Can't put online this work-related stuff really, no. And as I would
never use image-as-text for my private sites I also don't have anything
ready as sample.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #76

P: n/a
Brian wrote:
Philipp Lenssen wrote:
Yeah sure, there might be many tricks for CSS and HTML and browser
gurus.


Turning off images is not some arcane web trick.


Most users won't even fiddle with their options. I'm not talking about
us reading along here. We are experts if we made it this far, or at
least curious newbies (curious people always check the options).

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #77

P: n/a
Sam Hughes wrote:
"Philipp Lenssen" <in**@outer-court.com> wrote in
news:2nu50iF4ku7iU3@uni- berlin.de:
Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

The CSS properties which suggest fonts are not commands that must be >> obeyed at all costs, and this is a feature of Web technology.
Not a >> limitation, a feature.
If you want "looks the same, every time", use Postscript, PDF, or

some >> similar format.

Nobody wants that. But with that argument, you might as well say all
CSS is a failure and belongs to PDF or something else.


Your logic is byzantine. Please explain.


Because most CSS-authors do heavily rely on CSS to be understood. Or
else, they would go back to HTML. You know, layout is important, just
as important as having good content-only fallback mechanisms. CSS is a
good way to pragmatically suggest layout. I'm not saying to "force"
because we all know that doesn't work. Not even with PDF, because you
know what, I won't click on the PDF 99% of the time -- so I will see
nothing at all. I just find PDFs icky. I wouldn't find downloadable
fonts icky, as long as I have the chance to disable this option!

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #78

P: n/a
Gertjan Klein wrote:
It's funny that so many of the regulars here, who time and time again
state that CSS is *optional*, oppose the *option* of using the font
the page author would like to use.
I read it differently: the regulars are suggesting that such a thing
doesn't work, and don't see the need. But A. Flavell -- surely he
qualifies as a "regular here" -- specifically said he was not opposed to
the idea of a font download, if implemented correctly.
Wouldn't this be equally optional, if suggested through CSS?
You can *already* suggest a font via CSS. With the usual caveats about
availablility. Asking users to download fonts is something rather
different than asking for what's already on their system. I don't see
the need. I'd rather that browser makers spend their resources
elsewhere, e.g., improving support for CSS 2(.1), or better still,
improving support for HTTP.
Specifying (sorry, suggesting) fonts in CSS is so problematic at the
moment (largely due to the differing aspect values of fonts) that it
is almost unusable. Being able to supply, if needed, the authors
preferred font, in combination with an improved font-size-adjust
property,


A working font-size-adjust property would solve this problem; no need
for a font download mechanism.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #79

P: n/a
Philipp Lenssen wrote:
Brian wrote:
Turning off images is not some arcane web trick.


Most users won't even fiddle with their options.


How do you know this? I know people who turn off images. Why don't they
fall into the "most users" category?

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #80

P: n/a
In article <al**************@gododdin.demon.co.uk>,
jake <ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
It's *your* site; *you* decide how your audience sees it.


Not on the www, I'm afraid. The user has final veto.


This is the www -- the user gets to see exactly what the author is
offering *unless* he or she decides to disenfranchise themselves by
overriding the author's decisions.

And how many do? Not many, I'd bet.


- I have plugins, animated images and Java disabled by default, it slows
my browser down
- sometimes I disable JavaScript when used on websites build by
irresponsible authors
- I have a limit of 11px on how small fontsizes can go on pages I visit
- My browser refuses third party cookies and blocks popup windows
- I often increase fontsize on websites I want to read carefully
- My browser is not Microsoft's and I am happy with it

How is that for choice? You want the browserspecs of my girlfriend,
colleagues, friends, family and clients too? I can guarantee you that
not a single one is the same.

--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
Jul 20 '05 #81

P: n/a
In article <2n************@uni-berlin.de>,
"Philipp Lenssen" <in**@outer-court.com> wrote:
Nobody wants that. But with that argument, you might as well say all
CSS is a failure and belongs to PDF or something else.


Your logic is byzantine. Please explain.


Because most CSS-authors do heavily rely on CSS to be understood. Or
else, they would go back to HTML. You know, layout is important, just
as important as having good content-only fallback mechanisms. CSS is a
good way to pragmatically suggest layout. I'm not saying to "force"
because we all know that doesn't work. Not even with PDF, because you
know what, I won't click on the PDF 99% of the time -- so I will see
nothing at all. I just find PDFs icky. I wouldn't find downloadable
fonts icky, as long as I have the chance to disable this option!


As a visitor and an author of websites I actually experience the
separation of structure and presentation and the possibilities to
disable of override it as a great thing.

The WWW is about it's users in control, not the authors.

--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
Jul 20 '05 #82

P: n/a
In article <2n************@uni-berlin.de>,
"Philipp Lenssen" <in**@outer-court.com> wrote:
The difference was big enough for our designer to call it
off.


Take your designer on a webauthoring survival weekend in the Rockies.
He'll either switch back to print, accept the limits he has to learn
dealing with or die of accidentally stepping over a cliff.

--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
Jul 20 '05 #83

P: n/a
"Philipp Lenssen" <in**@outer-court.com> wrote in news:2nv0iaF53pk9U5
@uni-berlin.de:
Sam Hughes wrote:
Your logic is byzantine. Please explain.


Because most CSS-authors do heavily rely on CSS to be understood. Or
else, they would go back to HTML. You know, layout is important, just
as important as having good content-only fallback mechanisms. CSS is a
good way to pragmatically suggest layout. I'm not saying to "force"
because we all know that doesn't work. Not even with PDF, because you
know what, I won't click on the PDF 99% of the time -- so I will see
nothing at all. I just find PDFs icky. I wouldn't find downloadable
fonts icky, as long as I have the chance to disable this option!


I agree with all of this. I don't even find downloadable fonts to be
icky! (They're just so useless.)

But I am wondering how you see, by that argument way up the thread, that
CSS could be considered a failure.

CSS is a success because it's deceived the controlniks into thinking they
have a design that will look the same everywhere, while they unwittingly
receive the side effects of graceful degredation (generally)! :)

--
Anqdc>
Jul 20 '05 #84

P: n/a
I had another thought. Maybe an alternative to font-downloads as
discussed.

What about an agreed-upon, yet totally optional, "more or less default
browser font package"? It would include say 200 fonts, be available for
all the major browsers (Firefox, IExplorer, Opera, Safari, Konqueror,
Netscape 7, Mozilla) on your average-sized screen desktops, and it
would be enough for most needs to at least get *close* to the font you
want to have in your design (let's not get into the old "it's not
*your* design, it's *mine* argument -- we all know that there's
something as web-design, and not all pages are created equal).

We could then include fonts in CSS as we always do, but we could make
them "font-safe" in the sense that we could choose from the "restricted
200" set we now will reach 95% of our readers. That will be pragmatic
enough for some, it certainly would be for me. As usual, all the rest
will get a good fallback in the style of e.g. "this-font, arial,
helvetica, sans-serif" as usual.

What do you guys think of this? Too big a download? Nothing anyone
would ever agree on? Just not enough fonts? Or a good idea? It
certainly would rid me of having to worry about image-as-text.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #85

P: n/a
On 12/8/04 8:48 am, Philipp Lenssen wrote:
What about an agreed-upon, yet totally optional, "more or less default
browser font package"? It would include say 200 fonts, be available for
all the major browsers (Firefox, IExplorer, Opera, Safari, Konqueror,
Netscape 7, Mozilla) on your average-sized screen desktops, and it
would be enough for most needs to at least get *close* to the font you
want to have in your design


Yeah right :-)

How much do you think people would be willing to pay for this cross-platform
collection of 200 fonts? FYI, Adobe Type Basics contains only 65 typefaces,
but costs $99 for a 4 MB download.

Do you think people really care so much about your website that they're
prepared to pay that sort of money to look at it? I'm quite sure *I* don't.

Of course you *could* just buy up the licensing rights of 200 fonts and make
them freely available to everyone. That might help. It would cost you a bit
though...

--
Philip Ronan
ph***********@virgin.net
(Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)
Jul 20 '05 #86

P: n/a
Philipp Lenssen wrote:
What about an agreed-upon, yet totally optional, "more or less default
browser font package"?
I think you missed one of the major points of CSS entirely. There is no
way, nor will there ever be a way to guarentee the availability of fonts
on even a majority of systems.

This does not mean that the author is at all limited in the choice of
fonts that can be used. It is perfectly acceptible to specify a font
that only a few will have; the author just has to accept that it's not
going to appear exactly as intended for every user — that's why it is
possible to provide a list of chosen fonts, in order of preference.
That's what I did for the headings in my zen garden submission — I knew
my first font choice wasn't very common, but it looks good for those
that support it, and the second choice and generic family are still
perfectly acceptible.
It would include say 200 fonts, be available for
all the major browsers (Firefox, IExplorer, Opera, Safari, Konqueror,
Netscape 7, Mozilla)
And how would you expect to distribute this font package? The 261 fonts
currently installed on my system are over 50MB (though, that does
include the 22MB Arial Unicode font). Even if I had half the font's
that would be included in the package already installed, that would
still be quite a large download, especially if any fonts included
contained the whole, or at least most of the unicode character set. So,
if I were an average user, I wouldn't want to download it, especially if
I were on dialup since it would only really benefit an author who's
interested in pixel-perfection, not the user.
We could then include fonts in CSS as we always do, but we could make
them "font-safe" in the sense that we could choose from the "restricted
200" set we now will reach 95% of our readers.


I hate statistics, I couldn't care less whether 95%, or only 5% saw my
site as I originally designed it; it degrades gracefully (at least it
will when I fix up the css bugs). There's not even any accurate
statistics about browser usage, let alone the fonts installed on every
system. Also, no user's going to notice (without looking at the style
sheet) that their only seeing my site with the second or third choice in
font, or even the generic family specifed last.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/

Please direct all spam to ab***@127.0.0.1
Thank you.
Jul 20 '05 #87

P: n/a
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I hate statistics, I couldn't care less whether 95%, or only 5% saw
my site as I originally designed it; it degrades gracefully (at least
it will when I fix up the css bugs).


Do you work as professional web designer or developer?
If so, you know how much a difference 95% vs 5% makes -- it's the line
between the client saying "OK, implement it like that" (e.g. pure
CSS-font) and "No, that's not good enough" (which would lead to e.g. an
image of the text).

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #88

P: n/a
Philipp Lenssen wrote:
What about an agreed-upon, yet totally optional, "more or less
default browser font package"? It certainly would rid me of having to worry about image-as-text.


This is not intended as a personal attack, so please don't take it as
such.

The problem as I see it as that the graphical designers you work with
have a fundamental misunerstanding of the www. You would prefer to make
the best of it by providing better font coverage without having to rely
on images. I can understand you wanting a solution, but this problem is
not a problem for users on the www, it is a problem in your work
environment. To be blunt, that is not my problem, and thus I don't see
the need to solve it.

I'd guess that font selection will improve as new generations of
browsers are released, and I'm quite content to let it happen on its
own. Perhaps I'm in the minority here. In any case, my opinion is just
that, and nothing more.

I'd like to add one point: CSS font proposals are already optional, and
your design department cannot live with that fact, thus you're forced to
use images for the text. Any proposal to fix it -- CSS font-download
mechanism, or this "default font package" -- would also have to be
optional. If they didn't agree to the optional solution they now have,
why would they agree to the new optional solution?

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #89

P: n/a
In article <V1**************@gododdin.demon.co.uk>, ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk says...
Well, it's really quite a simple process.

You develop your page locally until you have it looking as you want it
(font-wise).

You then use a Microsoft utility (WEFT) to look at a page (or pages) of
HTML and to provide you with a list of fonts you've used.

You then select a particular font to be 'embedded' (as you think a lot
of people won't have it on their system) and the utility will then
generate a 'font object' (an .eot file) which can then be uploaded to
your server along with your HTML, CSS, images, etc.

When the browser (IE) reads your page, it will check to see if the user
has that font already installed -- if not, it will download the font for
temporary use.

One plus point is that, unlike graphical images, the text can be
re-sized.

Here's a few demos:
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...ng/default.htm


Ahhhhhhhhh. This is so soothing to my soul. :)

Well one thing is clear to me: There are two camps viz this issue, and I'm obviously
in the minority. I would only hope that this technology wouldn't significantly bloat
the files. If that were the case, I'd probably just stick with PDF's.

How interesting -- the concept of temporarily installing a font on User's computer.
I confess I see no limit to the amount of mischief that could derive from that
however. Although . . . we're downloading & caching the graphics everytime we visit
a page now. The only remaining issue would be the Copyrights to the fonts, I should
think. Very tricky, that one.

Angel
Jul 20 '05 #90

P: n/a
In article <2n************@uni-berlin.de>, in**@outer-court.com says...
See. I argued that many sites (like the one I maintain) happen to use
*images-of-text* thus because there is no way to otherwise
pragmatically suggest a font. Now what can you do? At least with
embedded font of some sorts you could easily override the font. But
with this approach you are now stuck with the font, can't resize it,
can't easily copy it (depending on the browser), and can't just show
the alt-text of the image unless you turn off all other images. And
that's just the user-pov, the maintenance of images-of-text is also
really bad!


Again, I concur with Philipp. I created my content and I want it displayed my way.
PERIOD. The control you enjoy, as a visitor to my site, is to MOVE ON if you don't
like it.

Oh and the point about saving your text to a graphic is SO right on! It's positively
god awful. And uses up so many resources just to display!

No sir, sooner or later we're going to have a "something-or-other" type of file that
will lock its content snugly in place -- a "mydirectory/MYFILE.lock" where the .lock
extension (in this example) will display its content according to the wishes of the
author. But I can be gracious: For the benefit of those of you who insist on
altering my content, you should have the option in your browser of ignoring all pages
with the "lock" extension. Fair enough? I'm actually very comfortable with that.

What I am NOT comfortable is having no alternative other than a PDF to display what I
created, for better or worse.

Angel
Jul 20 '05 #91

P: n/a
Brian wrote:
You can *already* suggest a font via CSS. With the usual caveats about
availablility.
You can (theoretically), but in practice the problems with doing that
(which I'm sure you are more than aware of) are so big that at least I
do so very reluctantly. Being able to specify a source for the font
would, for those that actually do download it, make a page appear
exactly as the author would like it to -- but do see below for
additional problems. (I *do* believe that I am entitled to propose (to
use Alan's word) an appearance for pages I author, even though I also
believe that those that view my pages should have the option to change
that appearance, if they so choose.)

I see no valid reason for dismissing downloadable fonts, even though
that would also provide more power to those that seem insistent on
creating unreadable, unusable pages. What, for example, is done now
through graphics (I've seen many pages that existed *entirely* of one
big picture) could then be done through standards-conforming HTML,
making such pages *more* accessible.
Asking users to download fonts is something rather
different than asking for what's already on their system. I don't see
the need.
Respectfully, it's not *your* needs that I'm discussing (or mine
specifically, for that matter). But indirectly, perhaps I am. Looking at
the layout and design of the majority of pages that I see on the 'net,
it is obvious to me that their designers want to create a look-and-feel
that is very difficult to obtain (specifically with regards to the usage
of fonts) with the currently implemented font mechanism. Even though I
thoroughly dislike most of these designs, I can't (and, frankly, don't
want to) change the way these designers design. It would be Good Thing
if they could create their designs solely in CSS, including the use of
e.g. company-specific fonts, without resorting to ugliness such as
graphical headings etc.
A working font-size-adjust property would solve this problem; no need
for a font download mechanism.


I disagree; it would only be a part of the solution. The problem of not
knowing the user's chosen font characteristics is the biggest one IMHO.
The user has chosen a default font/size combination which in their
circumstances (eyesight, monitor resolution) is just right; a page
author has no way of specifying a different font that has equal
perceived legibility. Being able to reference the default font
characteristics would perhaps solve this problem, and make all the
"microfont" pages disappear.

Gertjan.

--
Gertjan Klein <gk****@xs4all.nl>
Jul 20 '05 #92

P: n/a
In article <2o************@uni-berlin.de>, in**@outer-court.com says...
I had another thought. Maybe an alternative to font-downloads as
discussed.

What about an agreed-upon, yet totally optional, "more or less default
browser font package"? What do you guys think of this? Too big a download? Nothing anyone
would ever agree on? Just not enough fonts? Or a good idea? It
certainly would rid me of having to worry about image-as-text.


I think this is a horrible idea Philipp, however well intentioned.

In a world of, quite literally thousands of font styles, this severely restricts the
artist's (yes, I WILL dare to use that word!!!) concept of their creation. I
couldn't be happy with ANY restrictions on my use of fonts.

No, they just have to be embedded some way. And I hate to break it to everyone here,
this option WILL come, sooner or later. The world is much too rich with diversity
and creativity to be limited to the pedestrian likes of Verdana (and his half-wit
cousin, Times New Roman gag cough).

Angel
Jul 20 '05 #93

P: n/a
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
These difficulties involve, in general, relative sizing issues (the
most dramatic of which can be seen with Verdana); and in specific
cases, character repertoire issues (IE being especially problematic).


I've just noticed that CSS 2 had a compicated @font-face rule, which I
don't fully understand, but that appeared to address many of these
issues (including font downloading). It completely disappeared from CSS
2.1, but seems to have resurfaced in CSS3's WebFonts module. I don't
know if this module allows a page author to propose a font in such a way
that it would appear equally legible as the user's preferred font, but
if so, all we have to do is wait for browser vendors to actually
implement this module.

Gertjan.

--
Gertjan Klein <gk****@xs4all.nl>
Jul 20 '05 #94

P: n/a
On 12/8/04 5:40 pm, Curious Angel wrote:
I hate to break it to everyone here,
this option WILL come, sooner or later.


That's fine, as long as I can switch it off in my browser :-)

--
Philip Ronan
ph***********@virgin.net
(Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)
Jul 20 '05 #95

P: n/a
Gertjan Klein wrote:
Brian wrote:
You can *already* suggest a font via CSS. With the usual caveats
about availablility.
You can (theoretically),


There's no "theoretically" about it.

span {font-family: georgia, century, garamond, serif;}
but in practice the problems with doing that (which I'm sure you are
more than aware of) are so big
You and I have a different definition of a problem. Suggest a font,
suggest some fallback fonts. If the user has them, great! If not, the
content will still show up, albeit in a different font. It won't
adversely affect positioning or color. What is the big deal?
Being able to specify a source for the font would, for those that
actually do download it,
Well, that's the key, isn't it? "for those that actually do download
it...." In other words, it will not provide guaranteed coverage. But
then, CSS itself does not guarantee coverage. With all due respect, I
think those who want this are missing that fundamental aspect of CSS.
(I *do* believe that I am entitled to propose (to use Alan's word) an
appearance for pages I author,
Noone's questioning that. And I'll go one step further: I cannot be
opposed to the font-download proposal, on principle, assuming it is
optional. But I don't think it will solve a thing for designers who are
desperate to get their page displayed exactly as they want it. How can I
put this so that it's clear? CSS is optional. Period.
Asking users to download fonts is something rather different than
asking for what's already on their system. I don't see the need.


Respectfully, it's not *your* needs that I'm discussing (or mine
specifically, for that matter).


Indeed, you are not. In fact, the font-download thing is not about any
www user's needs. It is about granting more presentation options
to page authors who would be better off focusing on content
then on whether their page is displayed with Arial or Helvetica.
Looking at the layout and design of the majority of pages that I see
on the 'net, it is obvious to me that their designers want to create
a look-and-feel that is very difficult to obtain
There is the problem. And no CSS proposal will solve it, I'm afraid.
They can either learn to live with the www as it exists, or fight
against it with images, with the obvious repercussions.
The user has chosen a default font/size combination which in their
circumstances (eyesight, monitor resolution) is just right; a page
author has no way of specifying a different font that has equal
perceived legibility.
Ok. But a working font-adjust property would solve this very problem. In
any case, the size differences between most fonts, e.g., Arial and
Garamond, are not so great. A font-adjust thing would be most benficial
to scale down Verdana. A workaround for that in the meantime is to avoid
Verdana.
Being able to reference the default font characteristics would
perhaps solve this problem, and make all the "microfont" pages
disappear.


That's too much to swallow. Microfonts are not the result of a missing
font-download mechanism. They are the result of misuse of font-size.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #96

P: n/a
Curious Angel <by*******@usa.net> wrote:
No, they just have to be embedded some way. And I hate to break it to everyone here,
this option WILL come, sooner or later.


What do you mean "will" come?
Font embedding is old news.
There was a font emebedding technology in Netscape 4.
Microsoft's WEFT has been supported since IE4 and works with the
@font-face rule from CCS2.

WEFT + @font-face works in IE4+, so it will reach 90% or more of the
audience of an average web site.

But no one uses it. The only WEFT pages I've seen are pages that exist
just to demo the technology. <shrug>

And it's optional. The user can turn off font embedding. The user can
turn off all font suggestions made by the web page. Even if some
browser did "lock" the user into the designer's chosen font, another
web browser would come along that gave the user the choice to ignore
the designer's fonts. There will always be a market for a browser that
gives power to the user.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 20 '05 #97

P: n/a
In message <MP************************@news.intergate.com>, Curious
Angel <by*******@usa.net> writes
[snip]

Well one thing is clear to me: There are two camps viz this issue, and
I'm obviously
in the minority. I would only hope that this technology wouldn't
significantly bloat
the files. If that were the case, I'd probably just stick with PDF's.
You can generate files that just contain the characters that your page
uses, or that your site uses, or a full font -- your choice.

How interesting -- the concept of temporarily installing a font on
User's computer.
I confess I see no limit to the amount of mischief that could derive from that
however. Although . . . we're downloading & caching the graphics
everytime we visit
a page now. The only remaining issue would be the Copyrights to the
fonts, I should
think. Very tricky, that one.
No. WEFT will honour the distribution rules contained within the font
definition. If the font specifies 'no embedding', then no embedded font
will be generated.


--
Jake
Jul 20 '05 #98

P: n/a
Brian wrote:

I'd like to add one point: CSS font proposals are already optional,
and your design department cannot live with that fact, thus you're
forced to use images for the text. Any proposal to fix it -- CSS
font-download mechanism, or this "default font package" -- would also
have to be optional. If they didn't agree to the optional solution
they now have, why would they agree to the new optional solution?


It's always all about how many people it will effectively reach as
intended. It's not about utopian ideals but pragmatic goals to satisfy
the clients needs. If there would be an agreed-upon font selection for
95% that would be about the same masses that would see Flash; in other
words, it's enough to be useful (yes, we also heavily use Flash). Of
course, half of the client's need are not helping his business and
could be said to be unimportant, but to make a website look a bit like
the company style is not necessarily a bad thing. While these all may
not be your problems, I think they are the problem of many who work on
creating web sites.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #99

P: n/a
Gertjan Klein wrote:

I see no valid reason for dismissing downloadable fonts, even though
that would also provide more power to those that seem insistent on
creating unreadable, unusable pages. What, for example, is done now
through graphics (I've seen many pages that existed entirely of one
big picture) could then be done through standards-conforming HTML,
making such pages more accessible.


Exactly! And while preserving accessibility (which e.g. PDF doesn't) it
would make both HTML purists and designers happy, just like CSS does.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #100

133 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.