6 ms·
Well, in this case he replaced the designer's vision with Arial(!) because "Fonts all look the same below H3". Without ever talking to that designer. I'm sure
by matt4077 11y ago
Well, in this case he replaced the designer's vision with Arial(!) because "Fonts all look the same below H3". Without ever talking to that designer.
I'm sure a collaborative effort would have resulted in simply removing the 10 unused font variants and leaving the two that are used. That would save 416kb of those 500kb without being tasteless.
This is a good ressource on what designers think of his choices of Arial and Helvetica: http://practicaltypography.com/helvetica-and-arial-alternatives.html http://practicaltypography.com/helvetica-and-arial-alternati.... Quote: "I try to keep the litmus tests to a minimum, but this must be one: you cannot create good typography with Arial."
- tux1968 11y agoCan't follow that link for some reason. Firefox says: Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete. uses security technology that is outdated and vulnerable to attack. An attacker could easily reveal information which you thought to be safe.
- Angostura 11y agoI'm glad I'm not the only one that got terribly confused. I'm neither a developer, nor a designer, but I read it thinking - "hang on, I thought the issue with Web fonts is with the initial download speed - is it also true that Web fonts take longer to render?" Because that is the only reason I could see for using a different font for body style.
- x1024 11y agoBecause a developer-centered website needs custom webfonts, right? Even at the expense of performance. If only designers would learn that their job is not to paint a pretty picture, but to provide a good experience...