4 ms·
Chrome on Windows has some of the ugliest web fonts in general, but I've found that including an EOT, Woff and SVG in addition to the TTF. FontSquirrel's '@fon
by bmelton 16y ago
Chrome on Windows has some of the ugliest web fonts in general, but I've found that including an EOT, Woff and SVG in addition to the TTF.
FontSquirrel's '@font-face Kits' execute this as perfectly as I've seen, and I can't find a scenario wherein their fonts look ugly.
- retlehs 16y agoI'm curious, what version of Windows? Chrome for me on XP and Windows 7 has the most beautiful webfonts out of all browsers. The syntax from the kits at Font Squirrel are also what most other subscription/pay webfont use, so Font Squirrel fonts shouldn't necessarily be any different from Typekit fonts. Most recent bulletproof syntax: http://www.fontspring.com/blog/further-hardening-of-the-bulletproof-syntax http://www.fontspring.com/blog/further-hardening-of-the-bull...
- bmelton 16y agoI was specifically referring to XP, but I just checked against the new settings and you're right, it's looking gorgeous.
- notJim 16y agoDo you have a screenshot of good-looking webfonts on Windows? Here is a sample image I've made comparing various font rendering engines. The "Windows" one is by far the worst, IMO, and that's Chrome: http://twitpic.com/1ynx3e http://twitpic.com/1ynx3e . Edit: I looked around on fontspring, and noticed that most of those fonts look OK on Windows/Chrome, though not as good as on Firefox with DirectWrite enabled. Does the way you embed the font affect how well it renders? Also, I've noticed that many free fonts (like those available from Google) render poorly. Is this an artifact of them being poorly designed?