The web’s abuzz with talk of expanding the range of fonts we can use in web pages.
And yet…how often do you actually encounter this frustration? Not just as a designer, but in normal web life. Yes, it might be really good to be able to use Meta Sans because that’s what the corporate brochure is set in. But I bet it’s more of a concern that an optician uses tiny text and a light grey on a white background.
Perhaps, as Joe Clark says,
What do annoy are the same old bugbears: crap layouts, unreadable text, stupid “features”, Flash abuse, unnavigable IA, MMN etc. etc. With a handful of fonts, most of which have been designed to be read from a screen (—even at small sizes) we still get the basics wrong. Take this CSS expert’s blog. Can you spot the links? And just a few months ago the body copy itself was bolded in order to make it readable.
But the Skolar does indeed look lovely.
There are even advantages to using a handful of safe web fonts — it reduces the chances of making a mistake. Clients can’t ask for a completely inappropriate font for their site’s body copy because that’s what they use in their print material. It’s fun working within a tight set of rules.
Font stacks aren’t all bad
I’m certainly not against being able to use more über fonts in web pages: I guess I agree with Mark Pilgrim on this. Instead of worrying about the licensing perhaps we should use free fonts like
Skolar Calluna — or even stick to font stacks. That way the great unwashed get Arial while all your designer friends can revel in Gotham.