4 ms·

Yes, very awesome. Makes implementation much easier. But having just removed a font from our web app to improve performance (download time and rendering time)

by jazzdev 15y ago

Yes, very awesome. Makes implementation much easier. But having just removed a font from our web app to improve performance (download time and rendering time) I can't help but wonder if sprites aren't lighter weight than using a whole font when you only need a few icons.

hellweaver666 15y ago
If you only need a low number of icons in a single size, then yes, bitmap icons are probably the way forward, but if you need lots of icons and you need them to be scaleable, then this is a great way to achieve it. I wish someone would create a tool that lets you pick only the icons you want and compile a new minimal font with just what you need in it (in all the formats necessary for safe cross browser embedding).
- justincormack 15y ago
  I believe font squirrel http://www.fontsquirrel.com/ http://www.fontsquirrel.com/ can do subsetting for you and then output all formats.
- irishstu 15y ago
  Pictos http://pictos.cc/server/ http://pictos.cc/server/ lets you build an icon font using only the icons you need also
tintin 15y ago
✔ it's also good practice to check unicode first. Arrows for example are available in all shapes and directions. ➜ So if there is an icon available in unicode just use that one.
- justincormack 15y ago
  Not necessarily if you want the weights to match other icons. But in many cases this is the best option.
- icebraining 15y ago
  Support unicode doesn't necessarily mean the client has a compatible font. I couldn't see the "look of disapproval" emoticon (ಠ_ಠ) without having installed an appropriate font, for example.
ot 15y ago
Have you tried embedding the font in the CSS? The overhead if the CSS is gzipped is small, and you save one request and the flashing text when the font is loaded. Jammit http://documentcloud.github.com/jammit/ http://documentcloud.github.com/jammit/ (and presumably other asset packagers) does it automatically.

by jazzdev 15y ago

hellweaver666 15y ago

If you only need a low number of icons in a single size, then yes, bitmap icons are probably the way forward, but if you need lots of icons and you need them to be scaleable, then this is a great way to achieve it. I wish someone would create a tool that lets you pick only the icons you want and compile a new minimal font with just what you need in it (in all the formats necessary for safe cross browser embedding).

justincormack 15y ago
I believe font squirrel http://www.fontsquirrel.com/ http://www.fontsquirrel.com/ can do subsetting for you and then output all formats.
irishstu 15y ago
Pictos http://pictos.cc/server/ http://pictos.cc/server/ lets you build an icon font using only the icons you need also

tintin 15y ago

✔ it's also good practice to check unicode first. Arrows for example are available in all shapes and directions. ➜ So if there is an icon available in unicode just use that one.

justincormack 15y ago
Not necessarily if you want the weights to match other icons. But in many cases this is the best option.
icebraining 15y ago
Support unicode doesn't necessarily mean the client has a compatible font. I couldn't see the "look of disapproval" emoticon (ಠ_ಠ) without having installed an appropriate font, for example.

ot 15y ago

Have you tried embedding the font in the CSS? The overhead if the CSS is gzipped is small, and you save one request and the flashing text when the font is loaded. Jammit http://documentcloud.github.com/jammit/ http://documentcloud.github.com/jammit/ (and presumably other asset packagers) does it automatically.