SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 16 of 16

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    SitePoint Addict Scott Blanchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    314
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    A Google web fonts explosion! Closing in on 400 fonts???

    Just a few days ago, Google's web fonts collection was at 320. I checked it out today and found they are up to 393 fonts! At this rate, they'll be pushing a thousand by Spring.

    I'm curious if you've noticed and in particular, I see that when I sort by "Date added" a few older fonts (Nosifer, Eater, Creepster and Butcherman) are appearing as if they had just been added, although these fonts were available at least a month ago.

    Does this mean they were updated (perhaps improved font metrics) and re-added?

  2. #2
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    23,592
    Mentioned
    411 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    I'm not sure, but to be honest, I find Google fonts very buggy and have never gotten one to work cross-browser, whereas I've had no problems with FontSquirrel fornts.

  3. #3
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ralph.m View Post
    I'm not sure, but to be honest, I find Google fonts very buggy and have never gotten one to work cross-browser, whereas I've had no problems with FontSquirrel fornts.
    Ditto... The idea of sending only what the end user needs is semi-attractive, but it ends up coming down to browser sniffing which is ALWAYS a steaming pile of failure. Real CSS3 fonts for the win, Google fonts, not so much.

  4. #4
    SitePoint Addict Scott Blanchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    314
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I suppose it depends on the implementation. This site reflects my standard implementation > http://plasticmailboxes.net/

    Google handles all the details, I just call the font script and apply the css. Works fine in every browser I've tested.

  5. #5
    Mazel tov! bronze trophy kohoutek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    4,248
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't think Ralph meant the implementation but rather the quality and readability of Google fonts per se.
    Maleika E. A. | Rockatee | Twitter | Dribbble



  6. #6
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    23,592
    Mentioned
    411 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Actually, I did mean the implementation. I've never gotten Google fonts to show in each browser. Can't remember now, but they may show in Chrome while not in FF, Safari etc. I don't think I was doing anything wrong, as you just use the link Google gives you. But I just gave up in the end. I've gone back to them several times, but finally gave up earlier this year.

  7. #7
    SitePoint Addict Scott Blanchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    314
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ralph.m View Post
    Actually, I did mean the implementation. I've never gotten Google fonts to show in each browser. Can't remember now, but they may show in Chrome while not in FF, Safari etc. I don't think I was doing anything wrong, as you just use the link Google gives you. But I just gave up in the end. I've gone back to them several times, but finally gave up earlier this year.
    Can you see these?

  8. #8
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    23,592
    Mentioned
    411 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Yes. I'm not at my normal PC, but tested in 3 browsers and see them in each. Perhaps some fonts work better than others. I'll have to investigate more.

  9. #9
    SitePoint Addict Scott Blanchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    314
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ralph.m View Post
    Yes. I'm not at my normal PC, but tested in 3 browsers and see them in each. Perhaps some fonts work better than others. I'll have to investigate more.
    I've got several examples using different fonts. I haven't found one yet that I can break. If you'll tell me which you'd like to use, I'll hook up an example.

    Here's a few more:

    http://amazonia.clickbump.com/ - Oswald, Cederville Cursive

    http://gadget.clickbump.com/ - Shanti, Schoolbell

    http://ctr.clickbump.com/ - Signika, Shadows into Light

  10. #10
    SitePoint Mentor silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    1,376
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ralph.m View Post
    Actually, I did mean the implementation. I've never gotten Google fonts to show in each browser. Can't remember now, but they may show in Chrome while not in FF, Safari etc. I don't think I was doing anything wrong, as you just use the link Google gives you. But I just gave up in the end. I've gone back to them several times, but finally gave up earlier this year.
    I did have a similar problem with TypeKit, but it seams that I was at fault. Some fonts require italic or bold properties in the CSS class. After doing this the font worked perfectly in all browsers. Maybe this is your problem. Glad to be of assistance, let me know if this solved the issue.
    follow me on ayyelo, Easy WordPress; specializing in setting up themes!

  11. #11
    SitePoint Evangelist
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    523
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    offtopic:
    do u guys know maybe where i can get the 'symbola' font to run on my site? i've tried looking for it on any of the sites u gave above and couldn't find it

    edit: i've found it here but only as TTF format: http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/

  12. #12
    SitePoint Zealot MrFlicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Bucks Herts London Lincs< UK
    Posts
    108
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ralph.m View Post
    Actually, I did mean the implementation. I've never gotten Google fonts to show in each browser. Can't remember now, but they may show in Chrome while not in FF, Safari etc. I don't think I was doing anything wrong, as you just use the link Google gives you. But I just gave up in the end. I've gone back to them several times, but finally gave up earlier this year.
    Know that feeling

    From aha finally on to something that means I can have fonts across all browsers that don't have to be part of images to display and then hmm not so great after all.

    Blimey fonts are a nightmare IMHO I just got WACICO as a name and need to develop a font. I have a partner who can do so but how do you approach such things and still make it so the font could get used in things like illustrated Children's books (the first of which I have coming out this year for my cartoon characters)?

    I really wish (like other things) that the world of fonts was easier.

  13. #13
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In a lot of ways I wish it wasn't easier... just from an accessibilty standpoint because I find 99% of web fonts hard to read... which is why I don't use them on my own pages... the "for print"-tards and people who know nothing about websites might get over excited for fancy illegible fonts, but if I'm using the web for what it's for -- delivering information -- webfonts for content text is just another steaming pile of useless bloated slow junk.

    Though for non-content areas it's kind-of interesting -- I'd just never use them on anything I expect people to actually read.

    But what do I know, my favorite font is Arial.
    Last edited by Paul O'B; Dec 27, 2011 at 07:42. Reason: Children may be watching

  14. #14
    SitePoint Addict Scott Blanchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    314
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    Though for non-content areas it's kind-of interesting
    FWIW, I only apply web fonts to headings and post excerpts, but that's only because I'm satisfied with default font stacks for large content blocks.

    The web is rapidly transforming to consume the print world. As more and more magazines and books make the transition to the web, the drive to bring the print aesthetic to the web (and that's largely built around fonts) will mandate a rich set of typographic tools and capabilities.

    There's no reason we cannot have accessibility and aesthetic. The advent and adoption of CSS delivered us from table based layouts cemented with single pixel transparent gifs. Its doing the same with typography.

    Responsive design and rich typography are the next major waves of the web in 2012.

    Tell Amazon.com that the only role for the web is delivering information ;-)

  15. #15
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    365
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The designer using webfonts needs to keep in mind x-height. Something like Garamond Premier Pro is a beautifully designed typeface and a great go-to for print, I wouldn't use for web even if it was legal, because the x-height is so low making web readability a nightmare, combined with the fact that the letterforms are on the narrower side of the fence and the thick-to-thin contrast is high. Since the more widespread accessibility to webfonts is fairly new, the greater use of them, I believe, will lead to type designers like adobe, to begin designing web versions of those fonts. So we might start to see a Garamond with greater x-heights and less contrast in letterforms, specifically designed for the web and offered via a service like Google, providing they fix their service. I'd love to see that.

  16. #16
    SitePoint Addict Scott Blanchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    314
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sdt76 View Post
    The designer using webfonts needs to keep in mind x-height.
    Good point about x height. Font metrics can vary greatly depending on the typeface you are working with. This is the same regardless if using web fonts or not.

    I include a font previewer in my WordPress theme options panel.



    This allows the site owner to preview the font as well as its metrics in context of adjacent in-flow text blocks. I also include a custom css box to allow them to adjust margins, padding and line height as needed for each individual element in which fonts are applied to (Site Title, Site Tagline, Post Excerpt and All Hx level headings).

    Hope this helps someone. Google web fonts, when implemented correctly, are brain dead simple and rock solid across every browser I've tested them on.

    Bottom line:
    There are over 3,000 individuals & businesses who use my WordPress theme, representing tens of thousands of websites, and I've not received one negative support issue on Web fonts.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •