Font downloads

[Philipp Lenssen]

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).

[Philipp Lenssen]

Brian wrote:

Gertjan Klein wrote:

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?

I'm amazed the problem seems to be so hard to grasp.
- When you suggest a font only a minority will see in the first place,
most teams + their clients creating web pages will decide that (if the
font is very important to the design) to include it as *image*. In this
case, your font-suggestions go right to the trash can.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com

[Philipp Lenssen]

Steve Pugh wrote:

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>

We tried it here. The result is not satisfactory. The font looks
somewhat ugly, to tell the truth -- kerning is just not as perfect as
in Photoshop. (And yes, it was the same font used -- it was the
in-house font of the company we're working for.) It's good to the point
I'd be happy with it (being a developer and all) but the designer's
not. So we create images on the fly using a server component...
--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com

[Philipp Lenssen]

Curious Angel wrote:

In article <2o************@uni-berlin.de>, in**@outer-court.com
says...

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.

But what if an agreed-upon font-package would at least come closer to
the font as intended by the designer? Wouldn't that dramatically
improve the situation?

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com

[Steve Pugh]

"Philipp Lenssen" <in**@outer-court.com> wrote:

Steve Pugh wrote:

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>
We tried it here. The result is not satisfactory. The font looks
somewhat ugly, to tell the truth -- kerning is just not as perfect as
in Photoshop.

That's true. But the same is true if you use Verdana or Times New
Roman - in Photoshop you have precise control over many more variables
then you do in HTML/CSS.

Why do you think that any other font downloading technology would give
results as good as those in Photoshop? There is no kerning property in
CSS2, so if you have kerning set to anything other than Auto in
Photoshop you're doing something that is simply impossible with live
text in a web page.

Things may change in a few years time, see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-css3-te...#kerning-props for the
first steps towards kerning control via CSS. Matters of text
presentation do improve with time - up until a couple of years ago one
of the main reasons to use images in place of text was the
anti-aliasing. But now most Operating Systems support some form of
text anti-aliasing (ranging from the adequate to the rather nice)
that's fallen by the wayside somewhat.
(And yes, it was the same font used -- it was the
in-house font of the company we're working for.)
At which point I'd be tempted just to specify the font in question in
the CSS and leave it. The company's marketing department will see the
font as they have it installed. So they'll be happy. No one else will
see it, but no one else actually cares. Lies we tell to clients.

The designer won't be happy because it's still not the perfect
Photoshop representation thet they've got the hots for. But designers
are never happy, there's an art to knowing when to stop pandering to
their whims and start ignoring their foot stamping.
It's good to the point
I'd be happy with it (being a developer and all) but the designer's
not. So we create images on the fly using a server component...

Are you doing that for just headings or for whole pages of copy? Are
you inserting the images in the basic HTML, or in the CSS via the FIR,
or using a dynamic insertion technique such as the one outlined at
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dynatext/ ? Each method has its own
pros and cons but if you've decided to give in and let the designer's
whim override common sense then you need to weigh them up.

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/>

[Lachlan Hunt]

Philipp Lenssen wrote:

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?

Both, but mostly developer. I write most of the (X)HTML, CSS, JSP,
JavaScript, etc. I have some say in how the page looks, but at the
moment I'm just working on a complete rebuild to clean up the existing
mess, but using essentially the same visual design..
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).

I only said _my site_, not the corporate site. Unfortunately, the
marketing people behind the corporate site I'm rebuilding want near
pixel perfect in IE5.5. Fortunately, however, I've been able to get out
of using images for text because the fonts are all Arial, Helvetica or
Verdana; Although because of the requirement for near pixel perfection
in IE, I've had to live with a few decisions that affect the quality of
the markup, but the overall accessibility is not affected much at all.
So basically, yes, I am aware that 95% is still a huge difference for
corporations, but one day they may learn that the benefits of accessible
content using light-weight, structurally and semantically correct markup
far out weighs the disadvantages of not having pixel perfection in
obsolete browsers.

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

Please direct all spam to ab***@127.0.0.1
Thank you.

[Philipp Lenssen]

Steve Pugh wrote:

Things may change in a few years time, see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-css3-te...#kerning-props for the
first steps towards kerning control via CSS. Matters of text
presentation do improve with time - up until a couple of years ago one
of the main reasons to use images in place of text was the
anti-aliasing. But now most Operating Systems support some form of
text anti-aliasing (ranging from the adequate to the rather nice)
that's fallen by the wayside somewhat.

Interesting. I always turn anti-aliasing on in Windows but don't think
it's a default by now... not sure though.

At which point I'd be tempted just to specify the font in question in
the CSS and leave it. The company's marketing department will see the
font as they have it installed. So they'll be happy. No one else will
see it, but no one else actually cares. Lies we tell to clients.

Interesting idea :)

It's good to the point
I'd be happy with it (being a developer and all) but the designer's
not. So we create images on the fly using a server component...

Are you doing that for just headings or for whole pages of copy? Are
you inserting the images in the basic HTML, or in the CSS via the FIR,
or using a dynamic insertion technique such as the one outlined at
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dynatext/ ?

Just as heading. Everybody accepts the main copy may be arial. Funny
thing is the company-font is not even readable on screen in small
sizes, so we are happy not to use it in main copy. And also in
image-blurbs and such.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com

[Gertjan Klein]

Brian wrote:

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?
An example:

p { font-family: "Angsana New"; }

(I've never seen this font before, but found I have it installed after a
clean install of XP and Word 2000, selecting as much international
support as available.) This font is totally illegible when used with a
"normal" default font size (in my case, 17 px). If I want to use this
font, I will also have to specify a font size of, say, 160%, to make
sure it can actually be read. But, since not everyone has this font
installed, I have to propose fallback fonts. Let's say the only fallback
I specify (or that's available) is the user's default serif font. This
will now be displayed, if Angsana is unavailable, at 160% of the user's
preferred size. I find that a big deal.

I must admit that I don't understand enough of font issues to be able to
judge whether a working font-size-adjust would solve this problem, but
it appears it wouldn't. Enlarging a paragraph of Angsana to 160% and
comparing it to Times New Roman (of my default size) shows that the
aspect value of the fonts seem similar. Perhaps I misunderstand what
aspect value means, or how I can judge it on-screen, but
font-size-adjust appears to me to be too limited to solve font issues
like the one described above.
Well, that's the key, isn't it? "for those that actually do download
it...." In other words, it will not provide guaranteed coverage.
I think only one person in this thread *insists* on that. I don't.
(Actually, I don't care about fonts all that much anyway; but I would
like to see those that do, who currently make some web sites I visit
very difficult to read or adjust to my taste, have the option of
creating their "look and feel" in a way that allows me to quickly and
easily change it, if the site's content is worth the effort.)
In fact, the font-download thing is not about any www user's needs.
You're entitled to your opinion, obviously, but please don't pretend you
know what the whole (www) world "needs". I'm a www user too, and the
designers needing a company-specific font on their web pages are too.
My/their needs may differ from yours.
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.
Creating content and creating appearance are often two separate jobs,
like it or not. Some people have nothing better to do than mull over
what would be *just* the right font.
They can either learn to live with the www as it exists, or fight
against it with images, with the obvious repercussions.

The WWW, as it exists, is *far* from what you pretend it is. In it's
current state, there is no separation of content from presentation,
there is no significant usage of standards-conforming HTML,
accessibility is poor. The only way we can steer it back towards these
goals (if that can be achieved at all), is (IMHO) to allow those that
tried to turn it into a "lightweight PDF" to achieve their visual goals
*without* hindering accessibility, parseability (by e.g. Google), etc.

Gertjan.

--
Gertjan Klein <gk****@xs4all.nl>

[Gertjan Klein]

I wrote, about the font Angsana New:

This font is totally illegible when used with a
"normal" default font size (in my case, 17 px). If I want to use this
font, I will also have to specify a font size of, say, 160%, to make
sure it can actually be read.

I've just discovered that Mozilla on Windows [1] has a (mostly) working
font-size-adjust, contrary to what many of the CSS support pages I've
seen claim. I've therefore been able to test the problem with Angsana
New I described earlier, and found it can be compensated for easily.
There's no need to specify a font size of 160% either, just
font-size-adjust: 0.45 (or thereabout).

I'm still not entirely convinced font-size-adjust is the definitive
answer, but I haven't been able to create a test case so far that
demonstrates any problems with it. If only IE (and others) would
implement it...

Gertjan.

[1] http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130473

--
Gertjan Klein <gk****@xs4all.nl>

[Brian]

Philipp Lenssen wrote:

Brian wrote:

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?
I'm amazed the problem seems to be so hard to grasp.

So am I.
When you suggest a font only a minority will see in the first place,
How do you know it's a minority?
most teams + their clients creating web pages will decide that (if
the font is very important to the design)
There's the problem, right there. If you have a logo, use an image. But
if you want a font for e.g. all headings on a site, then your design
aims are too brittle for the www. Time to look at printing brochures
instead.
to include it as *image*. In this case, your font-suggestions go
right to the trash can.

With a font-download mechanism, you will get < 100% to see the font you
selected. With the current CSS font-family selector, you get < 100% to
see the font you selected. There's no way to know how much less than
100%, nor how much closer to 100% you'll get with a download mechanism.
Either way, the client, or the design department -- I'm having trouble
following who it is making these unreasonable demands -- must accept
that it will be < 100%.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Brian]

Philipp Lenssen wrote:

Brian wrote:

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;

How do you know that 95% can see Flash content? How do you know, or how
will you know, that 95% will see your preferred font if a download
mechanism is available? If someone above you has issued a decree stating
as much, fine, but you and I know that any stats related to the www are
wholly unreliable.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Brian]

Gertjan Klein wrote:

Brian wrote:
An example:

p { font-family: "Angsana New"; }

This font is totally illegible when used with a "normal" default font
size (in my case, 17 px). If I want to use this font, I will also
have to specify a font size of, say, 160%, to make sure it can
actually be read. But, since not everyone has this font installed, I
have to propose fallback fonts. Let's say the only fallback I specify
(or that's available) is the user's default serif font. This will now
be displayed, if Angsana is unavailable, at 160% of the user's
preferred size.
The font-size-adjust property is meant for such situations, unless I'm
missing something.

In fact, the font-download thing is not about any www user's needs.

You're entitled to your opinion, obviously, but please don't pretend
you know what the whole (www) world "needs". I'm a www user too, and
the designers needing a company-specific font on their web pages are
too.

I write "www users" to mean folks who use the www but do not author for
the www. Sorry, I should have made that clearer. The designers think
they need perfect font coverage. I'd question their definition of
"need", but not here. So let's agree that they "need" it. But I can't
see how users of their web sites need it.

They can either learn to live with the www as it exists, or fight
against it with images, with the obvious repercussions.

The WWW, as it exists, is *far* from what you pretend it is.

I don't think I'm pretending. And it is not about how I want it to be.
You can guess from my tone that I'm happy with the flexibility, but
happy or not, the www simply doesn't accomodate control freaks. I can
turn off images, js, colors, or all css with minimal effort. I can even
turn off only some css, or change it, with a bit more effort.

No, I stick by what I wrote. The www is a content rich, presentation
poor medium. The presentation aspect has improved quite a bit over its
short life, and will continue to improve, but it still takes a back
seat. And I don't see any way to force users to accept presentation in
the future.
In it's current state, there is no separation of content from
presentation, there is no significant usage of standards-conforming
HTML, accessibility is poor.
All accurate assessments, but what exactly does this have to do with
tryting to control fonts? If I point my browser to a page with invalid
markup, poor accessibility, and presentation mixed in with content, I
can still turn off color, or change the font to something I like, or...
The only way we can steer it back towards these goals (if that can be
achieved at all), is (IMHO) to allow those that tried to turn it into
a "lightweight PDF" to achieve their visual goals *without* hindering
accessibility, parseability (by e.g. Google), etc.

We can achieve quite a bit with evangelism. Even for control freak
sites, the accessibility can be improved with valid markup, proper use
of markup, etc. But I'm not out to change the world (wide web)[1], so
I'm not volunteering. ;-)

[1] "world (wide web)" phrase stolen from a recent ciwa* post. If I
remembered who wrote it, I'd credit him here.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[jake]

In message <Xn**************************@130.133.1.4>, Sam Hughes
<hu****@rpi.edu> writes

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.

Well, this is true -- but fortunately I was able to look it up in a
dictionary, so I have a much better idea now.
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.

Well, as you now know what it does; you decide whether it's of any use
to *you*.

But leave other people to make their own decisions. If it's of use to
them -- then that's fine; if it's of no use -- then that's also fine.

Some people win -- nobody loses.
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.
The designer chooses what tools he or she wants to use to bring their
message to their audience -- be it Flash, font-embedding, or whatever.

Maybe you should just leave it to the designer ;-)

(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.)

Can't see the point, myself.

regards.

--
Jake

[jake]

In message <kr*****************************@news1.news.xs4all .nl>, Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> writes

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.

Hmmm ..... I'm sure you have a point; just not sure what it is ;-)

regards.
--
Jake

[Sam Hughes]

jake <ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:2B**************@gododdin.demon.co.uk:

In message <Xn**************************@130.133.1.4>, Sam Hughes
<hu****@rpi.edu> writes

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.
The designer chooses what tools he or she wants to use to bring
their message to their audience -- be it Flash, font-embedding, or
whatever.

Maybe you should just leave it to the designer ;-)

But I already know that. Which is why

Sam Hughes wrote: aside from the irrelevant utility of illusioning the designer into
thinking he's improved the design.

WEFT is a way, perhaps, to trick some designers into thinking they have
successfully forced something, so that they do not use images for text.
But even then WEFT serves no purpose and can be misused for things like
the Symbol font.

--
How to make it so visitors can't resize your fonts:
<http://www.rpi.edu/~hughes/www/wise_guy/unresizable_text.html>

[jmm-list-gn]

Philipp Lenssen wrote:

What about an agreed-upon, yet totally optional, "more or less default
browser font package"? It would include say 200 fonts, [...]

Almost all of those fonts would be "titling" or "fantasy" fonts. Even
in the print world there is little variation in font styles especially for
body text. The major differences are in the titles and, to a lesser
extent, subheadings.
Another aspect is the low resolution of the display device: 72, 96 or
120 dpi is all you can expect. The subtle features of many fonts are
simply lost in the jagged rendering even with "smoothing." So to see the
clever choice a designer has made in font selection, it must be displayed
at least 30 pixels in height with smoothing. Since many designers prefer a
font size that renders little better than a 9 pin impact printer, what
would be the point?
--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

[Shawn K. Quinn]

Curious Angel wrote:

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.
If you really want this, then you need to use PDF. Using HTML with CSS, you
never will get this; your content may always be rendered in a different
manner from the precise rendering you had in mind.
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*ins ist*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*comfor table
with*that.
URLs aren't filenames. There's nothing magical about the characters after
the last period in a URL. In order to identify your content as something
besides HTML, you need to serve your content with a different Content-Type
header instead of text/html.
What I am NOT comfortable is having no alternative other than a PDF to
display what I created, for better or worse.

Unfortunately, that's pretty much it. Well, there's Postscript, which is
almost the same thing.

--
Shawn K. Quinn

[Gertjan Klein]

Brian wrote:

Gertjan Klein wrote:

p { font-family: "Angsana New"; }

This font is totally illegible when used with a "normal" default font
size (in my case, 17 px). If I want to use this font, I will also
have to specify a font size of, say, 160%, to make sure it can
actually be read. But, since not everyone has this font installed, I
have to propose fallback fonts. Let's say the only fallback I specify
(or that's available) is the user's default serif font. This will now
be displayed, if Angsana is unavailable, at 160% of the user's
preferred size.
The font-size-adjust property is meant for such situations, unless I'm
missing something.

It appears that I am missing something. If nothing else, I'm now utterly
confused by Mozilla's behaviour. The CSS2 spec states, with regards to
font-size-adjust [1]:

"This property allows authors to specify an aspect value for an
element that will preserve the x-height of the first choice font
in the substitute font."

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/fonts....nt-size-adjust

I have always read that to mean that font-size-adjust was applied to
*substitute fonts*, that is, if the first specified font was available,
this property would be ignored.

However, Mozilla also applies font-size-adjust to the *first* proposed
font, even if it is available. This works out great in the case of
Angsana New, because (without specifying font-size-adjust), it is
totally illegible, and needs the "font-size: 160%" to come close to the
legibility of, say, Times. However, it seems to me to be contradicting
what the spec says. Perhaps those better versed in reading/understanding
the specs could comment? (And perhaps this is better discussed over at
ciwas.)
The designers think they need perfect font coverage. I'd question their
definition of "need", but not here. So let's agree that they "need" it.
JFTR, I question their "need" as well, and wish they'd go and do
something useful, but that's beside the point. It's not up to me (or
you) to tell them what they should or shouldn't do, other than from our
own perspective. We have no way of knowing what "the" www user needs,
just what *we* need.
But I can't see how users of their web sites need it.
I understood what you meant, but need is a very relative term. I tried
to point out that, perhaps, some WWW users "need" a pretty web page,
i.e., that appearance matters to them as much as (perhaps more than)
content. Part of creating an attractive web page for them may be the
creative use of fonts. I doubt if any of the regular posters and lurkers
here are representative for the world (wide web) (nice phrase, BTW) at
large. But let's drop this, as we seem to be largely in agreement
anyway.
I don't think I'm pretending. And it is not about how I want it to be.
You can guess from my tone that I'm happy with the flexibility, but
happy or not, the www simply doesn't accomodate control freaks. I can
turn off images, js, colors, or all css with minimal effort. I can even
turn off only some css, or change it, with a bit more effort.
Yes you can, and so can I. But most [1] people can't; they don't know
how. (Or they don't care enough (read: get annoyed enough) to bother.)
I'd wager that someone still using IE, in spite of all it's
shortcomings, is not going to turn images off [2] just because they are
annoying.

[1] I don't want to start an argument, yet again, about what "most"
means; this is a personal assessment based on people in my surroundings.

[2] IMHO, even competent browsers like Mozilla make this far too
difficult. I personally want to browse with images on, and with the
simple click of a toolbar button have them removed from the currently
displayed page, without having to reload the page, and without having to
"configure" that images should be blocked from "this site" forever. The
same goes for animated images (number of repeats etc.). Browsers, at
least Mozilla and IE, are IMHO a long way away still from being
user-friendly.
And I don't see any way to force users to accept presentation in
the future.

I think we're looking at the same thing from different angles. I don't
want designers to be able to *force* anything on me, but I do want to
give them the means to *propose* appearance *exactly* as they like it,
with as much chance of realising that appearance on my system as
possible. The fact that I can personally alter *any* of their design
decisions, or that my system may not be equipped or configured to honour
their proposals, doesn't take away from that.

Gertjan.

--
Gertjan Klein <gk****@xs4all.nl>

[jake]

In message <Xn**************************@130.133.1.4>, Sam Hughes
<hu****@rpi.edu> writes
[snip]

WEFT is a way, perhaps, to trick some designers into thinking they have
successfully forced something, so that they do not use images for text.
Not really.

Depends on what the designer knows -- same thing could be said about
Javascript, Flash, or CSS that doesn't work in all browsers, etc.

The *knowledgeable* designer will realise that font-embedding is a means
of delivering content in a form that they, the designer, feels will
better represent their design concepts.

The designer will be aware that not all people will see their design as
envisaged -- but that the vast majority *probably* will. As any embedded
font will simply be one of many in the suggestion list, the content will
not be lost in any case.

But even then WEFT serves no purpose
It serves the purpose of producing an embedded font file -- if not that,
then what else ;-)
and can be misused for things like
the Symbol font.

A lot of people can misuse a lot of things for a lot of reasons (I don't
need an embedded font to use Wingdings on a page).
regards.

--
Jake

[Henri Sivonen]

In article <2n************@uni-berlin.de>,
"Philipp Lenssen" <in**@outer-court.com> wrote:

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?

Copyright, cross-platform implementability (or the lack thereof), flash
of unfontified content...

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...3Nov/0040.html

--
Henri Sivonen
hs******@iki.fi
http://iki.fi/hsivonen/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html

[Curious Angel]

In article <2o************@uni-berlin.de>, in**@outer-court.com says...

But what if an agreed-upon font-package would at least come closer to
the font as intended by the designer? Wouldn't that dramatically
improve the situation?

LOL I appreciate your spirit Philipp. I still couldn't go for this because I would
view it as a form of censorship. And what gives someone else the right to alter my
creation? Someone, somewhere (by your argument Philipp) would have to choose which
fonts to offer. Well. Then why create a website, since it ultimately never CAN be
something I created? Fonts are so very important to graphic design. I understand
those of you who wish to keep the net pliable; but I don't think the two concepts
being discussed here are mutually exclusive. In my world there would be a (non
bloatware/PDF) _file-type_ option that is proprietary -- so much so that to alter its
appearance would be Copyright infringement. Anyone who doubts how seriously some of
us take this issue need only research the number of Copyright/Trademark attorneys,
specializing in the Internet, to get religion quickly! We're filling the pews
whether some of you like it or not.

Those persons who wish to exercise their ABSOLUTE RIGHT to protect the appearance of
their web pages should be able to use (some) file type -- and provide to the general
public one alternative only: DON'T VISIT THE SITE if its appearance so offends your
aesthetic. You don't like that because you want to visit my site? Let's put it this
way: I grant that you have a right to visit my site (you do); what you DO THERE is
another thing altogether. To alter the appearance of my site is the equivalent of
hacking it, imho.

And here, I think, is where this argument turns: Is everything on the Internet
"Public Domain" or might there be a second option (such as PDF) for content to be
constrained to Copyright/Trademark protection?

Just so you know how I view your patronization of my site, I don't consider it yours
to alter -- indeed, you (ought to be restricted to) patronize my site on MY terms,
not yours. But you paid for your broadband connection, you argue? Honey, I NOT ONLY
PAY for the hosting (by whose express pleasure you have a page to visit TO BEGIN
WITH) _I_ AM THE ONE WHO LABORED WEEKS achieving the appearance of each page on it.
I assert a fundamental right to give you only one other option if you don't like its
appearance: LEAVE.

While I would never liken the Internet to a retail store, the same respect for
private property viz public access should nonetheless prevail: If you walk into my
store and begin changing my window displays, I ought to be able to throw you out of
my store. Certainly a better option would be to remove the temptation to make
mischief ON MY PROPERTY to begin with, and simply withhold your access to the keys
locking the displays in the first place. You could then stomp your feet and complain
while I was busy with other customers (you are NOT the only person to issue a verdict
on this, my property, it will pain your vanity to be reminded) and finally,
mercifully, LEAVE.

Angel

[Curious Angel]

In article <Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla. ac.uk>,
fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk says...

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's me (it will come as no surprise to everyone here LOL). :)

Angel

[Sam Hughes]

Curious Angel <by*******@usa.net> wrote in
news:MP************************@news.intergate.com :

In article <2o************@uni-berlin.de>, in**@outer-court.com
says...

But what if an agreed-upon font-package would at least come closer
to the font as intended by the designer? Wouldn't that dramatically
improve the situation?
LOL I appreciate your spirit Philipp. I still couldn't go for this
because I would view it as a form of censorship. And what gives
someone else the right to alter my creation? Someone, somewhere (by
your argument Philipp) would have to choose which fonts to offer.
Well. Then why create a website, since it ultimately never CAN be
something I created?

I infer, then, that every design of yours uses a personally-designed
font as well. Unless you've limited your font selection to those which
already exist -- and if you do that, then by your axiom, the design is
ultimately not something you've created.

The World Wide Web/HTML was invented for the propagation of
information. Web design merely hijacks that medium for its own purpose
-- for you to go bitching about being unable to perfectly control your
design makes you akin to a coastline designer that might bitch because
humans can change the shape of Norway's coastline by moving land,
etcetera.

The moral is: If you want to keep humans from modifying your well-
designed coastline, don't put it on a planet with tectonic activity, an
atmosphere, or humans. If you want your Web page design to be only
viewed as you imagined it, print it out and hang it on a wall.

The Web wasn't invented for the propagation of Web designs, so why are
you trying to use it for that purpose?
I understand those of you who wish to keep the net pliable; but I
don't think the two concepts being discussed here are mutually
exclusive. In my world there would be a (non bloatware/PDF)
_file-type_ option that is proprietary -- so much so that to alter
its appearance would be Copyright infringement.
But that would also require a law which changes the definition of
copyright infringement. Additionally, it would require such a law to
be passed in every country. Additionally, it would need to be
enforced, lest some rogue hacker extract the text from your document.
(and share to his other underworld friends a version which uses extra
large text!)

What if somebody takes a screenshot and scribbles on it in MS Paint?
That would spell DISASTER for your design! And what if a person was
color-blind when looking at your design! What if a viewer's monitor is
configured in a manner that makes it...

SLIGHTLY TRAPEZOIDAL.

Seriously, if I were you, knowing that nobody saw my design exactly the
same way, I would just flip out on the world, right now.
Anyone who doubts
how seriously some of us take this issue need only research the
number of Copyright/Trademark attorneys, specializing in the
Internet, to get religion quickly! We're filling the pews whether
some of you like it or not.
If you are filling some figurative pews, you're filling them with
stupidity.

Now I know that you stand on the side of lawyers, which is useful
information.
Those persons who wish to exercise their ABSOLUTE RIGHT to protect
the appearance of their web pages should be able to use (some) file
type -- and provide to the general public one alternative only:
DON'T VISIT THE SITE if its appearance so offends your aesthetic.
We already have this. It's called PNG. Of course, what you're really
after is just a crippled version of IE with 100% market dominance.
You don't like that because you want to visit my site? Let's put it
this way: I grant that you have a right to visit my site (you do);
what you DO THERE is another thing altogether.
You obvious don't understand something. When I visit your site, I'm
not "there." Your site comes to my computer, not me to yours.
To alter the
appearance of my site is the equivalent of hacking it, imho.
But clearly we're no longer talking about the World Wide Web, which is
inherently a non-artistic medium.
And here, I think, is where this argument turns: Is everything on
the Internet "Public Domain" or might there be a second option (such
as PDF) for content to be constrained to Copyright/Trademark
protection?
Do you know what public domain means?

Just so you know how I view your patronization of my site, I don't
consider it yours to alter -- indeed, you (ought to be restricted
to) patronize my site on MY terms, not yours. But you paid for your
broadband connection, you argue? Honey, I NOT ONLY PAY for the
hosting (by whose express pleasure you have a page to visit TO BEGIN
WITH) _I_ AM THE ONE WHO LABORED WEEKS achieving the appearance of
each page on it.
I agree. There really needs to be some way for you to justify the
futility of such an exercise.

If you want such a technology, try making it or getting somebody to
make it. Even if that were done, people wouldn't adopt it.
I assert a fundamental right to give you only one
other option if you don't like its appearance: LEAVE.
But clearly we're no longer talking about the World Wide Web, which is
inherently a non-artistic medium.

Judging by the way you rant, I think that you do no work on the World
Wide Web, since it is so oriented towards what the end-user desires.
While I would never liken the Internet to a retail store, the same
respect for private property viz public access should nonetheless
prevail: If you walk into my store and begin changing my window
displays, I ought to be able to throw you out of my store.

This analogy is rediculous.

I'm not changing your window displays on the WWW, unless your site is a
wiki. Which is why your likening is totally irrelevant, as you've done
me the favor of pointing out yourself.

------

The problem with what you want is that nobody else wants it except for
some of your fellow neurotics. Companies that want to have a certain
"image" should consider putting their pages on another medium that was
recently invented, the World Wide Web of Posers.

--
How to make it so visitors can't resize your fonts:
<http://www.rpi.edu/~hughes/www/wise_guy/unresizable_text.html>

[Darin McGrew]

Curious Angel <by*******@usa.net> wrote:

Then why create a website, since it ultimately never CAN be something I
created?
Then why create an ice sculpture, since it ultimately never remains the
sculpture that you originally created? Or a garden? Or a sandcastle? Or an
unlacquered copper sculpture? Or...

A good artist works with the nature of the medium, not against it.

There are numerous online media that allow the control you want (PDF,
PostScript, GIF, PNG, JPEG, Flash, etc., etc., etc.).

HTML (with or without CSS) isn't one of them.
Those persons who wish to exercise their ABSOLUTE RIGHT to protect the
appearance of
their web pages should be able to use (some) file type -- and provide to
the general
public one alternative only: DON'T VISIT THE SITE if its appearance so
offends your
aesthetic.

Often, it isn't a matter of offending anyone's aesthetic. It's a matter of
what is possible in the browsing environment, and what is accessible to the
user. Web authors don't control either of these factors. Good web authors
accept that fact, and work with it.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

politician n. one who double-crosses a bridge when he comes to it

[Joel Shepherd]

In article <MP************************@news.intergate.com>,
Curious Angel <by*******@usa.net> wrote:

Then why create a website, since it ultimately never CAN be
something I created? Fonts are so very important to graphic design.
Tell me: do musicians get upset when listeners buy their recordings and
proceed to play them louder or softer than they were originally
recorded, with more or less bass or midrange, on a custom-made audio
system or a device that has the sonic range of tin pan, in an
environment utterly different from where the music was recorded
originally?

Not being a musician, I don't know for certain, but I feel confident
guessing the answer is generally "No."

Get over yourself.

Your website _is_ your creation, but the devices and software I have
available to enjoy it may have totally different capabilities from what
you have. That's not an affront to you: it's just the way it is.

If you'd unknot your panties for a moment, you'd see that _you_, Curious
Angel, routinely enjoy other peoples' creations in a setting and medium
completely different from that in which they were originally created.
What is the big deal?
In my world there would be a (non bloatware/PDF) _file-type_ option that
is proprietary -- so much so that to alter its appearance would be Copyright
infringement.
Great. Then make your website out of a bitmap image, and sue everyone
with a monitor with a gamma setting not equal to your own. Sue everyone
who has more or less pixels per inch on their monitor than you do.
_That_ kind of attitude will certainly get more people to appreciate
your precious creation.
And here, I think, is where this argument turns: Is everything on the
Internet "Public Domain" or might there be a second option (such as PDF)
for content to be constrained to Copyright/Trademark protection?

Here's a newsflash honey: if you created the expression of an idea, it's
copyrighted (at least that's how it works here in the States).

That doesn't mean you can sue someone who _experiences_ your expression
in a different environment than the one you created it in.

Brush up a bit on copyright law -- and common sense -- before trying to
state where the argument turns.

--
Joel.

http://www.cv6.org/
"May she also say with just pride:
I have done the State some service."

[Neal]

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:55:49 GMT, Joel Shepherd <jo******@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

Not being a musician, I don't know for certain, but I feel confident
guessing the answer is generally "No."

Being a musician, I agree. One is free to hear a recording of me in their
car, in their home, on a boat, in outer space, etc.; although ideally
you'll have great speakers, an EQ which is tuned to the room, and a good
mix of absorbent and reflective surfaces in the room, you're free to
listen to it anyplace. You can turn the sound way down, or off, as far as
I care. You can play it back at half-speed or double-speed. You can have
conversation while putting it on in the background, or listen intently.
Etc.

If I get a recording that says "Best listened to when EQ is set in this
particular way, with a volume of 53.2dB etc" I can tell that the producer
and the engineer have no clue. I don't plan on following his suggestions.
I like my setup. It's set up for me.

Now, say you're some average Joe who has never touched his EQ won't
necessarily know that you can adjust the sound to your listening room's
shortcomings and strong points. You might think this engineer is doing
things in a correct way, and you go ahead and mess with your EQ. A bit of
a pain. And when you hear other music, you say, "gee, this is recorded
badly" when the real problem is your own EQ settings some nutjob told you
to do extra work and to set it his way, not the way it SHOULD be - which
is customized to YOUR listening preferences.

Just like a lot of websites out there.

And I'll note that producers don't let the musicians do "whatever they
want". They will say to the musician that they need to play louder here or
softer there. If the musician protests, he explains that playing for a
microphone for a later listening is much different than playing for a live
audience. He also mentions his experience in the recording studio, the
many who have trusted his judgement and succeeded, and suggests again you
make these modifications. If you stubbornly refuse (and why the hell would
you do that? As if the engineer wants you to fail?) the producer might
simply suggest that perhaps he isn't the right one to be doing this
project for you.

You could hire a lackey who doesn't have the experience or smarts, and who
won't push you to do it better so you both profit. But if you could do
better, why would you?

Same goes for dealing with clients who want things which break the user's
experience. You allow it, that website announces to the world, "The person
who authored this site is a Moron." So don't allow them to force you to do
wrong things.

So long as most authors make a cheap buck doing the wrong thing, the art
of web design will never rise to the level of the art of sound recording.
Want that to change? Want your craft to be seen as more than a
journeyman's task? Then stop treating it like that yourself.

Rant ends.

[Andy Dingley]

On 9 Aug 2004 17:40:17 GMT, Sam Hughes <hu****@rpi.edu> wrote:

What if you need to use Tengwar? :-P

You can't - you'd be infringing some Warner Bros copyright or other.

BTW - Can anyone suggest how to do Malabaric characters in Unicode ?
8-)

I'm trying to put a few pages from the "Hortus Indicus Malabaricus"
(a 17th century herbal) on-line. The illustrations have some of the
first examples of multi-lingual captioning I've ever seen; Latin,
Malabaric, Arabic and Old Braman.

[Sam Hughes]

Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.com> wrote in
news:iv********************************@4ax.com:

On 9 Aug 2004 17:40:17 GMT, Sam Hughes <hu****@rpi.edu> wrote:

What if you need to use Tengwar? :-P

You can't - you'd be infringing some Warner Bros copyright or other.

No

You could copyright a specific Tengwar font. You can't own a copyright
of a general way of writing. You could patent that, though. Tengwar is
not patented.
How to make it so visitors can't resize your fonts:
<http://www.rpi.edu/~hughes/www/wise_guy/unresizable_text.html>

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.com> wrote:

BTW - Can anyone suggest how to do Malabaric characters in Unicode ?

I'm trying to put a few pages from the "Hortus Indicus Malabaricus"
(a 17th century herbal) on-line. The illustrations have some of the
first examples of multi-lingual captioning I've ever seen; Latin,
Malabaric, Arabic and Old Braman.
Is "Malabaric" the same as Tamil (which is supported in Unicode) ?

--;K

[Brian]

Neal wrote:

Being a musician, I agree. One is free to hear a recording of me in
their car, in their home, on a boat, in outer space, etc.; although
ideally you'll have great speakers, an EQ which is tuned to the room,
and a good mix of absorbent and reflective surfaces in the room,
? A mix that includes reflective surfaces? That's usually bad. At least,
it is in radio. You want everything to be soft if you can manage it.
If I get a recording that says "Best listened to when EQ is set in
this particular way, with a volume of 53.2dB etc"

53.2dB??!? Not only would you be deaf, but it might actually damage
organs or bones. Sound at that level is nothing short of a weapon! (You
may be a musician, but you obviously haven't spent much time on the
other side of the glass.) :-p

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Neal]

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 22:31:15 -0400, Brian
<us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:

Neal wrote:

Being a musician, I agree. One is free to hear a recording of me in
their car, in their home, on a boat, in outer space, etc.; although
ideally you'll have great speakers, an EQ which is tuned to the room,
and a good mix of absorbent and reflective surfaces in the room,

? A mix that includes reflective surfaces? That's usually bad. At least,
it is in radio. You want everything to be soft if you can manage it.

Ever recorded a horn section? Need that natural reflection to make it work.

But we're talking about the user's environment. Indeed, some reflective
surfaces are wise in a listening room. In most, it cannot be avoided,
whether we're referring to the walls of your living room or the big glass
window in a recording studio control room. But this is not a place to
discuss a listening room, nor am I sufficiently educated in the formals of
the acoustics of it all to do so meaningfully.

If I get a recording that says "Best listened to when EQ is set in
this particular way, with a volume of 53.2dB etc"

53.2dB??!? Not only would you be deaf, but it might actually damage
organs or bones. Sound at that level is nothing short of a weapon! (You
may be a musician, but you obviously haven't spent much time on the
other side of the glass.) :-p

You are not being serious, are you?

http://www.lhh.org/noise/decibel.htm

50 dB is equivalent to an electric toothbrush. I didn't see the snippet on
the box to warn me to wear the earplugs when brushing my teeth. In fact,
as an orchestra conductor I face volumes reaching close to the 100's - for
short periods of time, granted. My hearing is great, by the way.

If you had argued that getting the volume to exactly that dB level was
next to impossible without headphones, ok, I'd concede. But I was just
being a little whimsical.

[Andy Dingley]

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:23:51 -0500, Mad Bad Rabbit
<ma**********@yahoo.com> wrote:

Is "Malabaric" the same as Tamil (which is supported in Unicode) ?

I don't know. It's probably very, very close. I'd guess that the
characters are the same, but the shape of the glyphs themselves might
have a few antique variations.

[Curious Angel]

In article <Xn*************************@130.133.1.4>, hu****@rpi.edu says...

You obvious don't understand something. When I visit your site, I'm
not "there." Your site comes to my computer, not me to yours.

Nice try. I didn't seek you out honey — YOU found ME. When did I tell you, Sam
Hughes, to come to my site? An invitation to the general public to visit my site
(should) not translate to a forfeiture of my control over its presentation. And all
the other cant about music et al. is not germane to the medium we're talking about
here. Turning the volume up on a song doesn't alter its lyrics; I argue that
changing the fonts on a page I've intended to appear a certain way cannot BUT alter
the presentation of the page — that the graphic nature of fonts have interpretive
qualities above and beyond the content they express. They are, in and of themselves,
a design. And their selection is my design. I have no problem with your enlarging
or reducing the size of the fonts — that is only fair in a world in which sight-
impaired visitors to the page MUST be permitted to "magnify" the page in order to
view it. That is the closest approximation to your analogy of turning up the volume,
and I concede its usefulness in any event.

Alas, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Even if I remain the only person
in this NG who feels this way, I assure you I won't be bullied into thinking
differently! My day will come. And then, as I said previously, you can take what I
give you or move on. In the words of the immortal Rhett Butler:

"Frankly my dear, I could give a damn."

Angel

[Sam Hughes]

Curious Angel <by*******@usa.net> wrote in
news:MP************************@news.intergate.com :

My day will come.

I'll remember this.

--
How to make it so visitors can't resize your fonts:
<http://www.rpi.edu/~hughes/www/wise_guy/unresizable_text.html>

[Darin McGrew]

Curious Angel <by*******@usa.net> wrote:

An invitation to the general public to
visit my site
(should) not translate to a forfeiture of my control over its
presentation.
True. But publishing it in HTML (with or without CSS) on the WWW does
translate to a forfeiture of your control over its presentation.

If you're going to publish in a medium where the concept of "font" may or
may not apply, and where the author's preferred fonts are optional even
when the browser can use them, then you can't complain if your creation
isn't rendered with the fonts you prefer.
And all
the other cant about music et al. is not germane to the medium we're
talking about
here. Turning the volume up on a song doesn't alter its lyrics;[...

The best musical analogy isn't turning up the volume, or even mucking
around with an equalizer. The best musical analogy is publishing a song as
sheet music (or even, as lyrics and chords for other musicians to use).

Someone else's performance of your song is going to be different from your
own performance. Some media are like publishing recorded music (audio
files, images, PDF documents, etc.), but HTML (with or without CSS) is more
like publishing sheet music for the browser to perform.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"No matter how far you have gone on the wrong road, turn back."