The web’s abuzz with talk of expanding the range of fonts we can use in web pages.
Apparently, this is important. This is something we want. Designers often throw their hands up, exasperated, at how difficult it is to use, say, Caslon for headlines.
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, there is no broad clamour among web designers to use any font they want
.
The lovely Caslon
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.
Gotham font - from PoconoPCDoctor (http://www.flickr.com/photos/92803449@N00/)
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.
I completely agree with you, Leon.
Some time ago, photoshop effects were everywhere. Reflections, shadows, glows, stripes, etc. And everyone started to hate it because “designers” used that just because they could.
I believe this will happen with a more open web, not only in terms of web fonts. CSS3 features may become the next “photoshop effects”. I do believe, however, that paid web fonts like Typekit would be great, because the ones who are willing to pay for typography are usually the ones who know how to do it.
I guess it’s the old adage: just because you can use it doesn’t mean you should.
The best design uses these effects to make the user’s experience a better one; sometimes it’s difficult to admit that you don’t need much because the result can look a bit bare. But if it works…
There’s also probably an element of resistance on my part as I’m so used to using a handful of fonts.
Also, I’m not so sure that the best typographers are necessarily the only ones willing to pay for fonts. Not sure how it will pan out — I think if you’re offering free fonts you’re probably about to get a lot more exposure.
Skolar is not a free font, is it?
I think that those who’re good at Web Typography will benefit from having more font choices available, those who suck at it would obviously fail with more font choices as well.
I also agree with Leon that those offering free fonts that are optimized for Web would win the battle of font-faces.
I think it’s all about searching for possibilities in technology. You don’t have to use it if it doesn’t fit in you.
But I think it’s nice to see beautiful fonts applied to the web, though :)
I’m happy the @font-face tag is showing up in the latest generation of browsers. More power over type on the web is a good thing, even if at first there will be abuses. Just like with Flash, the newness will eventually wear off, and us web folks will just have another tool to add that last bit of detail to our designs.
@inspirationbit
Nope, it’s $149 (I’ll amend the text). Oops. (And thanks!)
I see you’ve twitted about a free font called Calluna: there’s quite a few to try; I may introduce something here just to dip my toe in the water.