5 ms·

Performance. Embedding 18 fonts via CSS would add a lot of weight and the browsers (particularly mobile safari) don't cope too well when you embed too many font

Performance. Embedding 18 fonts via CSS would add a lot of weight and the browsers (particularly mobile safari) don't cope too well when you embed too many fonts at once. (I work at Typekit)

jawngee 16y ago
Have you guys sorted out the Safari issue? We were going to use TypeKit but it looked like crap in Safari 5.
- paulhammond 16y ago
  We're not aware of any issues in Safari 5 - could you drop an email to support@typekit.com with an example URL showing the problems so we can look into it?
- tptacek 16y ago
  Are you hoping to use it for running text? Our corp site is Typekit, and it works just fine with Safari 5 (we're an all-Mac shop). But we're not trying to set body text in Minion or anything; we use a neutral sans for the body, and FF DIN for heds and subheds.
yellowbkpk 16y ago
I guess in a blog post announcing new fonts I would expect to see the system in action. If performance is an issue then I won't want to buy your product, right? All I'm saying is I'm surprised you're not using your own product on a product announcement blog post :-). On the other hand, I suppose most websites only embed one or two unique fonts.
- daychilde 16y ago
  As a typekit user, I have insight into this. It's as PaulHammond said: Embedding fonts means downloading a copy of the whole font. TypeKit tracks how big the font files are. Each font might only be ~20-30K - but that's one weight/style. If you use multiple weights and styles, that's 20-30K per each. It's easy to rack up 3-4 weights, and of course I want italics on some of those == 4 weights times 2 italics times 3 fonts = 20-30k times 24 and now we're talking half a meg or so... If I'm demoing 18 fonts on a page, even at a single weight and style - that's approaching half a meg right there. I think using an image is the right call. But if you want to see TypeKit in action (I get no benefit from pushing them - I'm just a satisfied user), here's a couple of sites I'm using it on: http://picklepatchpcb.com/ http://picklepatchpcb.com/ http://daychilde.com/ http://daychilde.com/ http://music.isaac.im/ http://music.isaac.im/ http://oilspillupdate.us/ http://oilspillupdate.us/ http://panamacitypc.com/ http://panamacitypc.com/ http://rockincompany.com/ http://rockincompany.com/
pornel 16y ago
Isn't this because of all the obfuscation you're adding? Extra scripts, split font files and data: URIs can't be good for performance...

Performance. Embedding 18 fonts via CSS would add a lot of weight and the browsers (particularly mobile safari) don't cope too well when you embed too many fonts at once. (I work at Typekit)

jawngee 16y ago

Have you guys sorted out the Safari issue? We were going to use TypeKit but it looked like crap in Safari 5.

paulhammond 16y ago
We're not aware of any issues in Safari 5 - could you drop an email to support@typekit.com with an example URL showing the problems so we can look into it?
tptacek 16y ago
Are you hoping to use it for running text? Our corp site is Typekit, and it works just fine with Safari 5 (we're an all-Mac shop). But we're not trying to set body text in Minion or anything; we use a neutral sans for the body, and FF DIN for heds and subheds.

yellowbkpk 16y ago

I guess in a blog post announcing new fonts I would expect to see the system in action. If performance is an issue then I won't want to buy your product, right? All I'm saying is I'm surprised you're not using your own product on a product announcement blog post :-). On the other hand, I suppose most websites only embed one or two unique fonts.

daychilde 16y ago
As a typekit user, I have insight into this. It's as PaulHammond said: Embedding fonts means downloading a copy of the whole font. TypeKit tracks how big the font files are. Each font might only be ~20-30K - but that's one weight/style. If you use multiple weights and styles, that's 20-30K per each. It's easy to rack up 3-4 weights, and of course I want italics on some of those == 4 weights times 2 italics times 3 fonts = 20-30k times 24 and now we're talking half a meg or so... If I'm demoing 18 fonts on a page, even at a single weight and style - that's approaching half a meg right there. I think using an image is the right call. But if you want to see TypeKit in action (I get no benefit from pushing them - I'm just a satisfied user), here's a couple of sites I'm using it on: http://picklepatchpcb.com/ http://picklepatchpcb.com/ http://daychilde.com/ http://daychilde.com/ http://music.isaac.im/ http://music.isaac.im/ http://oilspillupdate.us/ http://oilspillupdate.us/ http://panamacitypc.com/ http://panamacitypc.com/ http://rockincompany.com/ http://rockincompany.com/

pornel 16y ago

Isn't this because of all the obfuscation you're adding? Extra scripts, split font files and data: URIs can't be good for performance...