6 ms·
Google Code Blog: Introducing the Google Font API & Google Font Directory
- TimothyFitz 16y agoUnfortunately their blog's "example" is just a static image (what are they thinking?). If you want to actually see samples of what the fonts look like go directly to the Font Directory: http://code.google.com/webfonts http://code.google.com/webfonts
- agl 16y agoThis is probably due to limitations in Blogspot, although that's just an excuse for an unfortunate compromise.
- ilike 16y agoAs the article mentioned, you can see the implementation in wild here: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/ http://www.smashingmagazine.com/
- bravura 16y agoLet's see what they looks like on a variety of browsers: http://browsershots.org/http://code.google.com/webfonts http://browsershots.org/http://code.google.com/webfonts
- iaskwhy 16y agoI was just redesigning one of my sites and was thinking seriously about using Typekit. This makes me rethink my strategy and will probably be a hard hit on Typekit.
- kilian 16y agoIt seems Typekit and Google made a deal: https://code.google.com/apis/webfonts/docs/webfont_loader.html https://code.google.com/apis/webfonts/docs/webfont_loader.ht... I suppose they plan on 'sharing' the API where Google will supply/host the free fonts, and Typekit the paid ones?
- minouye 16y agoDoes Typekit have any advantages over Google? Google has better infrastructure, a simpler impelentation (no signup required), and a budget to license a wider variety of fonts.
- kj12345 16y agoWow this looks great. Just include the stylesheet and use the font in your CSS. Seems like the big type foundries are going to regret dragging their feet on agreeing to a reasonable scheme for web fonts. I know that these are probably inferior in some ways to commercial fonts, but it will be a steep hill to climb to get people to pay for fonts if this project gains traction.
- bshep 16y agoThey don't have many fonts available yet, but if there is something I've learned about Google is that they always think big. Maybe in a couple of days they will announce the buy out of one of the foundries? Here's hoping...
- megablast 16y agoTo be honest, how many fonts do you need? This is the web, and it is not 1998, when a lot of people would want to use as many fonts on their page as possible. Show some restraint.
- mgcross 16y agoMore than that - most are too stylized to be used for body copy. You'd be amazed at how many times art directors or clients have forced me to use images for large chunks of copy. For the most part I agree with you and feel that font-size, letter-spacing and line-height applied to standard fonts is enough for good typography.
- adbge 16y agoWhy are you implying that less fonts is a good thing? Just because someone might misuse fonts, that doesn't mean we should force everyone to use just what you think is okay. Magazines use all kinds of fonts and they typically look a hell of a lot better than most websites.
- thenbrent 16y agoMore choice doesn't mean more typefaces on a single page. Even if you use only 3 typefaces on a page, it doesn't mean you don't want access a library of a thousand fonts so you can use the perfect 3-5 typefaces.
- jafl5272 16y agoI just tried it in IE7, and the JavaScript from Google causes an error. The font still renders, however.
- sil3ntmac 16y agoKilimanjaro called it yesterday :) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1357578 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1357578
- Kilimanjaro 16y agoThanks google, love ya guys ;-) Now, what would be the benefit of calling: http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Inconsolata which in turn serves the css that contains the real call to the font: @font-face { font-family: 'Inconsolata'; src: url('http://themes.googleusercontent.com/font?kit=J_eeEGgHN8Gk3Eud0dz8jw') format('truetype'); } So, why two trips, instead of just one? What I'd do is just call the font directly and teach developers to use @font-face And shrink the url a bit: http://fonts.googleapis.com/Inconsolata Remember, once it gets widespread use it would be harder to change a single char
- qjz 16y agoI wish they'd serve everything from subdomains in google.com. I mean, seriously, why does Google keep registering new domains for projects (google<something>.com) when they could easily use <something>.google.com instead? What's wrong with fonts.google.com?
- Hovertruck 16y agoMy guess is they don't want to send all the cookies stored on the google.com domain whenever someone loads a font.
- AGorilla 16y agoYet another attempt by Google to control our words and by proxy, our minds. Once everyone depends on this font API to make their social mobisodes pretty, Google will do some clever pixel altering to insert favorable articles about itself into the New York Times. They'll change the Chinese government's website to say "we suck", and a virtual stop-hitting-yourself slapfight will spillover into real world bloodshed. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
- thorax 16y agoNah, they just want to move people out of making graphics they can't crawl/translate/etc and instead encourage people to use a textual format that Google (and anyone else) can index.
- sketerpot 16y agoNaturally, the most insightful comment so far is a reply to a massively-downvoted "wake up sheeple" post.
- CWuestefeld 16y agofnord
- nopal 16y agoOn my Windows 7 machine, they're really ugly (in IE, FF, Chrome and Safari). I double checked to make sure ClearType was enabled, and it is. I don't think I'd use any of these in a project where I needed a polished look and feel. I much prefer Smashing Magazine's non-Google font-ified header font. Kudos to Google for taking on this project, though. As others have said, this could be a catalyst in getting the foundries to open up their fonts to the web.
- abossy 16y agoCould you share some screenshots? The browsershots link [1] posted earlier only contains Windows XP. It's hard to tell exactly what the quality is in Windos because the browsershots images are low-res, but it looks like the edges are very noisy. [1] http://browsershots.org/http://code.google.com/webfonts http://browsershots.org/http://code.google.com/webfonts
- nopal 16y agoBefore I saw your request, I put this one together: http://imgur.com/pR1IL.png http://imgur.com/pR1IL.png It's Win7 FF on the left, Safari on Mac on the right. I'll try to get some more when I'm at work tomorrow.
- mgcross 16y agoLooks nice on Mac. According to the screenshots, they're antialiased in Ubuntu also.
- nopal 16y agoHere are some screenshots from Windows 7 with ClearType enabled and "tuned." http://static.nyquistrate.com/media/g-web-fonts-chrome-5.0.375.38.png http://static.nyquistrate.com/media/g-web-fonts-chrome-5.0.3... http://static.nyquistrate.com/media/g-web-fonts-ff-3.63.png http://static.nyquistrate.com/media/g-web-fonts-ff-3.63.png http://static.nyquistrate.com/media/g-web-fonts-ie-8.png http://static.nyquistrate.com/media/g-web-fonts-ie-8.png http://static.nyquistrate.com/media/g-web-fonts-safari-4.0.4.png http://static.nyquistrate.com/media/g-web-fonts-safari-4.0.4... To my eyes, they all look the same.
- zokier 16y agoThe fonts render really ugly with Firefox 3.6.3 on Windows 7 (cleartype on). Anyone care to throw a few screenshots from Chrome?
- mrcharles 16y agoIt's no better in chrome. Super aliased, looks like crap.
- bd 16y agoOn Windows 7 it looks the same (ugly aliased) everywhere (Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari, Explorer). On Windows XP it's even uglier (according to BrowserShots screenshots linked upthread). On Ubuntu, Chromium and Firefox are pretty, Opera didn't render anything.
- zokier 16y agoI need to try it tomorrow then at work. So it seems that the fonts themselves aren't that bad, they are just incompatible with most browsers.
- neovive 16y agoThis is a very exciting development that will offer great long-term benefits to the web. Relying on cross-platform fonts when building web pages was always challenging and limiting. I'm looking forward to this expansion of the font directory. I also hope this improves the web browsing experience on Linux out of the box.
- username3 16y agoAre these free for commercial-use like fontsquirrel.com?
- zweben 16y agoYes. In fact, nearly all of the fonts are also available on fontsquirrel.com.
- gills 16y agoDisappointing that the gallery doesn't render in the android browser, considering the mentions of droid fonts.
- bruceboughton 16y agoNor on Mobile Safari.
- Kilimanjaro 16y agoOne little thing that makes the web a happier and prettier place. Thanks Google, we owe you big.
- retlehs 16y agothis currently doesn't support SVG which means no support for the iPhone and iPad
- yanw 16y agoGoogle webfont previewer: http://code.google.com/webfonts/preview http://code.google.com/webfonts/preview
- mgcross 16y agoThe descenders in the Droid sans headlines on Smashing are cropping for me in vista. The fonts are also aliased, but if I remember correctly, typekit also only produced aliased fonts in windows.
- greenlblue 16y agoDoesn't work on opera.
- eli_s 16y agocan anyone shed some light on why some people are reporting aliased text (even with clear type)? I'm looking at them on XP and they look stunning in all browsers. It's not a bulletproof system. I tried looking at the sample page at work where we have a restrictive proxy filter and it was a no-go.
- timinman 16y agoGoogle will tell you that they do things like this to make the web more usable, or on a larger scale, to make information more accessible. I think it’s mostly a sincere sentiment; what’s good for the web is good for google.
- KirinDave 16y agoI am terrified that we're going to see a lot of people start using Droid Serif and Droid Sans. These are not hideous fonts, but I find them somewhat graceless and unappealing.