3 ms·
The only reason is to escape regulatory fines for something 99% of the world doesn't give a shit about. Not using fonts is not always an option
by jokethrowaway 4y ago
The only reason is to escape regulatory fines for something 99% of the world doesn't give a shit about.
Not using fonts is not always an option
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago> Not using fonts is not always an option The silliness of this is that someone is going through the effort to set up hosting for a website but hosting the fonts is just too difficult and has to be delegated to a third party. The laziness of webdevs never fails to astound.
- lolinder 4y agoI don't think it's laziness. My conscious brain knows that it's anachronistic, but I still have the instinct to use a CDN for the shared caching between sites. Obviously, browser privacy changes mean that isn't a valid reason any more, but for me the instinct is still there.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoSites will setup a CDN to serve their own custom assets, but fonts? nope not doable. It's 100% laziness.
- lolinder 4y agoI'm not talking about setting up a CDN for custom assets, I'm talking about using something like jsdelivr or Google Fonts. Back in the day using those was a "best practice" because most people would (in theory) already have whatever font/library you're using cached. A lot of people, myself included, still have that as a habit that takes conscious effort to avoid falling into.
- vorticalbox 4y ago> Not using fonts is not always an option Do you have an example where doing something in an external font is not possible in one that's built into the browser?
- colejohnson66 4y agoSure, not all sites need them custom fonts; I hate when I’m reading a page and it reflows because the font changed, but there’s legitimate uses for fonts. Case in point: icon fonts that work using the “private use area” in Unicode.