6 ms·

Free High-Quality Fonts

126 points by smashing_mag 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago
This title got pruned back too far; put the word "Free" back into it. HN pro typosetters: some expert critiques of these faces --- particularly the ones that aren't just offering a teaser weight, and aren't display faces more appropriate to deviantART than a magazine --- would be awesome. Are free typefaces improving, starting to break out of the foundry system?
- jacobolus 16y ago
  I’d advise asking at Typophile if you want good expert critiques. I don’t know that there’s a big enough community of type experts at HN to start a useful conversation. I’m not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I liked Espinosa the best of the featured faces. From a Google search, here’s the Typophile discussion of that one: http://www.typophile.com/node/74292 http://www.typophile.com/node/74292 ... note that apparently only the regular-weight roman is available for free, though it does include small caps, ligatures, old-style numbers, &c.; the other 7 fonts in the family are $50 each, or all 8 + 4 fonts of special drop caps for $400.
- thristian 16y ago
  Of the fonts listed, the ones most interesting to me are: - Lato: Complete font families are hard to come by, especially ones under an open licence, with reasonably complete character sets and the necessary kerning adjustments. This one looks pretty great. - Crimson Text: Looks pretty promising, and has a lot of very useful features on the roadmap, but as the page says, "Crimson Text is under heavy development, and the spacing/kerning is abysmal. If you use it in public these days, you'll likely embarass yourself." I'll be keeping an eye on it, but sticking with Linux Libertine or Heuristica for the moment. - Neuton Regular: Friendly and with a bit of personality, it's a shame there's only one weight available, but it looks pretty solid for body text.
user24 16y ago
what, just in case I happen to be looking for one?
pdelgallego 16y ago
A question a little bit off topic. I am a developer, but I have been trying to push my boundaries. I am using a lot the @font-face css rule, but I noticed that most of the websites keep using image replacement for text. Why is that? Is bad to use the @font-face rule?
- rossriley 16y ago
  Two reasons. 1. IE support whilst possible doesn't give great quality results, especially at smaller point sizes. 2. Font licensing hassle. None of the foundries seem to want to license fonts and getting an online license is often too much hassle. Image replacement is ok, since you're not making the font file and metrics available to download.
  - endtwist 16y ago
    Actually, point #2 is wrong. Most of the major foundries have their own font licensing system these days (or it's a work-in-progress). It's not the greatest solution since you can't have all your licensed fonts in, say, TypeKit, but it's not too bad. - Linotype/Monotype: http://webfonts.fonts.com/ http://webfonts.fonts.com/ - Bitstream: http://new.myfonts.com/info/webfonts/ http://new.myfonts.com/info/webfonts/ - FontFont: http://www.fontfont.com/opentype/ http://www.fontfont.com/opentype/ - TypeKit (various foundries): http://typekit.com http://typekit.com …and Hoefler & Frere-Jones is currently working on a web font licensing system as well.
    - ugh 16y ago
      Wrong is too harsh. Those are all recent developments, sometimes work in progress. Licensing wasn’t easy only a few months ago and it is only now getting gradually easier. It’s – like the grandparent said – a hassle.
    - rossriley 16y ago
      Yes, that may be true but that's some foundries and some fonts. How these things normally work is that the branding and typography for a brand is done by a separate agency who specify the typefaces, then a separate digital agency have to implement it. If the chosen typeface isn't available with an online license then you have to fall back to replacement. Maybe in another year or so things will have improved to the state where more typefaces are available for online use than not.
sp332 16y ago
I thought Phoenica looked familiar - turns out it's pretty similar to the font Canonical commissioned for Ubuntu. I think I like Ubuntu's better, actually. And of course it's free :-) http://font.ubuntu.com/ http://font.ubuntu.com/

126 points by smashing_mag 16y ago

This title got pruned back too far; put the word "Free" back into it. HN pro typosetters: some expert critiques of these faces --- particularly the ones that aren't just offering a teaser weight, and aren't display faces more appropriate to deviantART than a magazine --- would be awesome. Are free typefaces improving, starting to break out of the foundry system?

jacobolus 16y ago
I’d advise asking at Typophile if you want good expert critiques. I don’t know that there’s a big enough community of type experts at HN to start a useful conversation. I’m not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I liked Espinosa the best of the featured faces. From a Google search, here’s the Typophile discussion of that one: http://www.typophile.com/node/74292 http://www.typophile.com/node/74292 ... note that apparently only the regular-weight roman is available for free, though it does include small caps, ligatures, old-style numbers, &c.; the other 7 fonts in the family are $50 each, or all 8 + 4 fonts of special drop caps for $400.
thristian 16y ago
Of the fonts listed, the ones most interesting to me are: - Lato: Complete font families are hard to come by, especially ones under an open licence, with reasonably complete character sets and the necessary kerning adjustments. This one looks pretty great. - Crimson Text: Looks pretty promising, and has a lot of very useful features on the roadmap, but as the page says, "Crimson Text is under heavy development, and the spacing/kerning is abysmal. If you use it in public these days, you'll likely embarass yourself." I'll be keeping an eye on it, but sticking with Linux Libertine or Heuristica for the moment. - Neuton Regular: Friendly and with a bit of personality, it's a shame there's only one weight available, but it looks pretty solid for body text.

user24 16y ago

what, just in case I happen to be looking for one?

pdelgallego 16y ago

A question a little bit off topic. I am a developer, but I have been trying to push my boundaries. I am using a lot the @font-face css rule, but I noticed that most of the websites keep using image replacement for text. Why is that? Is bad to use the @font-face rule?

rossriley 16y ago
Two reasons. 1. IE support whilst possible doesn't give great quality results, especially at smaller point sizes. 2. Font licensing hassle. None of the foundries seem to want to license fonts and getting an online license is often too much hassle. Image replacement is ok, since you're not making the font file and metrics available to download.
- endtwist 16y ago
  Actually, point #2 is wrong. Most of the major foundries have their own font licensing system these days (or it's a work-in-progress). It's not the greatest solution since you can't have all your licensed fonts in, say, TypeKit, but it's not too bad. - Linotype/Monotype: http://webfonts.fonts.com/ http://webfonts.fonts.com/ - Bitstream: http://new.myfonts.com/info/webfonts/ http://new.myfonts.com/info/webfonts/ - FontFont: http://www.fontfont.com/opentype/ http://www.fontfont.com/opentype/ - TypeKit (various foundries): http://typekit.com http://typekit.com …and Hoefler & Frere-Jones is currently working on a web font licensing system as well.
  - ugh 16y ago
    Wrong is too harsh. Those are all recent developments, sometimes work in progress. Licensing wasn’t easy only a few months ago and it is only now getting gradually easier. It’s – like the grandparent said – a hassle.
  - rossriley 16y ago
    Yes, that may be true but that's some foundries and some fonts. How these things normally work is that the branding and typography for a brand is done by a separate agency who specify the typefaces, then a separate digital agency have to implement it. If the chosen typeface isn't available with an online license then you have to fall back to replacement. Maybe in another year or so things will have improved to the state where more typefaces are available for online use than not.

sp332 16y ago

I thought Phoenica looked familiar - turns out it's pretty similar to the font Canonical commissioned for Ubuntu. I think I like Ubuntu's better, actually. And of course it's free :-) http://font.ubuntu.com/ http://font.ubuntu.com/