4 ms·

> Wouldn't it be far simpler and cheaper to support to loosen up your layout so you don't need 18 font faces specified? I mean, c'mon. Simpler, yes. Cheaper, n

by err4nt 11y ago

> Wouldn't it be far simpler and cheaper to support to loosen up your layout so you don't need 18 font faces specified? I mean, c'mon. Simpler, yes. Cheaper, no, not if you're a business that makes money from their website. > I think a good layout/design that works with system fonts alone ought to be considered a greater success than a pixel-tight layout that only works with 1 forced-download font that eats up bandwidth Me too from a technical standpoint, however there is no system font in the same quality as the web fonts I use available on most systems. I'm supplying a font that fixes font issues, it would be amazing if I could install better fonts on every system in the world so I didn't need to supply it. > a questionably "cheaper to support" layout that has a 275-character-long font-family rule. Oh that font rule still goes in there in case there's any issue with the webfont. That wishlist I posted is right out of my own CSS files, that's what I use. I can guarantee you that using that font stack with Source Sans supplied via fontface _will_ look better on every system than whatever system font would display from that list if Source Sans is missing. It's literally the best produced font I've ever used (in a technological way, I'm not even considering style here) which makes it very versatile. I design things all the time that don't include webfonts, it's called my non-professional work. In 2016 if you're paying a professional to create a web layout and they aren't supplying you with a professional-level typeface to work with inside layout, they aren't giving you a complete frontend solution.

bobwaycott 11y ago
Everything you've said throughout this thread is a series of highly opinionated, subjective rationalizations. Yet you continue to deliver these rationalizations as if they're incontrovertible facts. Most of your comments honestly read as if you think you're talking with people who don't deal with this stuff—gasp!, including design and designers—every day ... like you're pitching a sale with a client. Come off it. We are all professionals here, and most of us can see our way through the pitch.
- err4nt 11y ago
  > Everything you've said throughout this thread is a series of highly opinionated, subjective rationalizations. They are, but they are opinions based on a decade and a half of working with these technologies, and being currently employed as a specialist in responsive CSS. I'm not just giving you my opinions, I've been linking directly to open-source solutions I get paid to provide for clients. No pitch, I've done the opposite—I've given you the jewels. You won't need to hire me to fix these things now if you use my code for free ;) > Yet you continue to deliver these rationalizations as if they're incontrovertible facts. Based on hundreds of hours of testing across different browsers and devices, you're going to have to trust me that what I have left is thoroughly tested and proven to work. I have nothing to gain or lose from what I've said here, but some of the insight and code samples I've provided might help people avoid or fix a whole class of common website bugs - the kind that are hard to reproduce, and hard to test because they usually pop up on exotic hardware or software configurations. I Hope my opinions, tested code, and experience have helped some professionals in this thread :) I'm curious how you would approach building a website that isn't broken when viewed on dozens of devices and browsers. Do you have any opinions, code, or suggestions to contribute to the discussion?
  - bobwaycott 11y ago
    Now you're attempting to argue from authority, and it reads like trying to shutter disagreement by implying I'm not contributing to the discussion in your closing graf. That's fairly insulting, friend. Kudos on you for sharing some code you're proud of, but others have also provided the same kinds of critique I would to some of the suggestions you've offered in this thread. And these jewels you speak of don't strike me as such. Design is inherently subjective. There's also a dizzying amount of subjectivity inherent in many people's "proven" technical solutions.

by err4nt 11y ago

bobwaycott 11y ago

Everything you've said throughout this thread is a series of highly opinionated, subjective rationalizations. Yet you continue to deliver these rationalizations as if they're incontrovertible facts. Most of your comments honestly read as if you think you're talking with people who don't deal with this stuff—gasp!, including design and designers—every day ... like you're pitching a sale with a client. Come off it. We are all professionals here, and most of us can see our way through the pitch.

err4nt 11y ago
> Everything you've said throughout this thread is a series of highly opinionated, subjective rationalizations. They are, but they are opinions based on a decade and a half of working with these technologies, and being currently employed as a specialist in responsive CSS. I'm not just giving you my opinions, I've been linking directly to open-source solutions I get paid to provide for clients. No pitch, I've done the opposite—I've given you the jewels. You won't need to hire me to fix these things now if you use my code for free ;) > Yet you continue to deliver these rationalizations as if they're incontrovertible facts. Based on hundreds of hours of testing across different browsers and devices, you're going to have to trust me that what I have left is thoroughly tested and proven to work. I have nothing to gain or lose from what I've said here, but some of the insight and code samples I've provided might help people avoid or fix a whole class of common website bugs - the kind that are hard to reproduce, and hard to test because they usually pop up on exotic hardware or software configurations. I Hope my opinions, tested code, and experience have helped some professionals in this thread :) I'm curious how you would approach building a website that isn't broken when viewed on dozens of devices and browsers. Do you have any opinions, code, or suggestions to contribute to the discussion?
- bobwaycott 11y ago
  Now you're attempting to argue from authority, and it reads like trying to shutter disagreement by implying I'm not contributing to the discussion in your closing graf. That's fairly insulting, friend. Kudos on you for sharing some code you're proud of, but others have also provided the same kinds of critique I would to some of the suggestions you've offered in this thread. And these jewels you speak of don't strike me as such. Design is inherently subjective. There's also a dizzying amount of subjectivity inherent in many people's "proven" technical solutions.