6 ms·
Svgs are cool, but icon fonts are just 10% of their file size
- tb303 14y agoGreat dissection, thanks for sharing! Similarly argued, icon fonts are cool but have x-browser rendering issues, dependence on webkit for accurate anti-aliasing (currently), require sticking to a 32x32 grid, and altogether lead to a massive headache for nimble development. In most cases, especially for new products and low traffic, it's premature optimization. Github's speakerdeck gives a great rundown of their experience: https://speakerdeck.com/u/jonrohan/p/say-hello-to-octicons https://speakerdeck.com/u/jonrohan/p/say-hello-to-octicons And note, this is Github, who actually has reason to optimize for >2MM users, saying the process was is too complex and tedious.
- alz 14y agothank you for your comment, and the link, really interesting points!
- FireBeyond 14y agoSVGs are XML, which can be compressed transparently by the web server using GZip, which from my reading on the web typically gets around 70-80% compression on XML files, thus reducing the deficit fairly heavily. Also, that first comparison chart? "Most browsers don't support the full SVG featureset" - Firefox 3.1, Chrome 1.0, Safari 3.2?
- alz 14y agothis is true, although even when gzipped svgs are typically about double the size of ttfs re browsers, yea none of them passed 100% of the tests, but admittedly that chart is about 10 months old
- alz 14y agohere is a followup post comparing gzipped versions: http://blog.pictonic.co/post/33163844823/icon-fonts-vs-svgs-part-2 http://blog.pictonic.co/post/33163844823/icon-fonts-vs-svgs-...
- projct 14y agoThe first graph has the wrong label for the x axis.