4 ms·
My feeling on web fonts is that that they can sometimes look nice but aren't worth the page weight. My approach is to pick two fonts I expect MacOS and Windows
by discreditable 10y ago
My feeling on web fonts is that that they can sometimes look nice but aren't worth the page weight. My approach is to pick two fonts I expect MacOS and Windows to have, then fall back to generic. Other times, I'm more lazy and just use the generic.
To put it more bluntly: https://bestmotherfucking.website/#remote-fonts https://bestmotherfucking.website/#remote-fonts
- BinaryIdiot 10y agoI completely agree. I always choose two fonts that I am find with displaying which are available basically everywhere, then I add a default of san serif and I'm done with it. Yes some fonts do look better but after spending a better half of my career dealing with situations in which the latency for a computer and a server might be several seconds I've developed a bias against using web fonts. But if you want to use them make them optional like this site explains :)
- acdha 10y agoOne problem with this approach is when you're relying on web fonts for Unicode character ranges which aren't universally supported by your visitors’ OS. A compromise approach which can work nicely is declaring @font-face values using unicode-range to target specific language blocks and then having your font-family be something like 'sans-serif, noto-sans-whatever` so it'll default to a similar system font but load the webfont when the page actually has a character which isn't in the system font.
- heywire 10y agoI'm surprised that browser vendors aren't including the more popular fonts.
- acdha 10y agoIt'd be something else to manage updates for and the base OS support is pretty good on modern releases. These days, the gaps I see are for fairly obscure languages and since webfonts solve that problem and can do conditional downloads, I doubt it's worth the trouble.
- glandium 10y agoA font that supports all Unicode is larger than a browser installer.
- saghm 10y agoAnd even worse, you have to download the font every time you load a different page using it, whereas you only have to download the browser once
- colejohnson66 10y agoCitation? All the DejaVu fonts total about 5 megabytes[0] and they have pretty impressive coverage[1]. What are they missing? [0]: http://dejavu-fonts.org/wiki/Download http://dejavu-fonts.org/wiki/Download [1]: http://dejavu-fonts.org/wiki/PDF_samples http://dejavu-fonts.org/wiki/PDF_samples
- glandium 10y agoDejaVu fonts are far from covering Unicode. They don't have any Chinese, Japanese or Korean characters, for a starter.
- mos_basik 10y ago>that link Nice. I was only familiar with the original one; I wasn't aware that there were more. It appears to be the most recent one? I was hoping to find a comprehensive list of this kind of site somewhere but didn't. I did find these by following some breadcrumbs: 1. http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ [original] 2. http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ 3. http://evenbettermotherfucking.website/ 4. https://bestmotherfucking.website/ [yours] 5. https://thebestmotherfuckingwebsite.co/ [with extra satire] I don't think #3 is a particularly strong example, though. I don't think it looks bad - In fact I think it looks good; my personal site uses monospace fonts - but I think it adds too much to make its point effectively. #4's criticism of #3 is spot on, and its mention of Let's Encrypt, gzip and caching make it my new favorite. Thanks!
- discreditable 10y agoThanks, I really appreciate the positive review!
- dredmorbius 10y agoAnd one more: https://codepen.io/dredmorbius/pres/KpMqqB https://codepen.io/dredmorbius/pres/KpMqqB