I converted an SVG font to OTF using FontForge. I know the original font has certain errors, but really don't think any of those errors would cause the following issue:
When using CSS
writing-mode:vertical-lr; text-orientation:upright, I get the following results. The Firefox rendering is perfect, but for some reason the results seem to kern certain letter combinations in Chrome (ver. 96). I've tried doing everything I can think of in FontForge as far as clearing kerning tables, toggling options for "old kerning" and "microsoft kerning", etc. Nothing seems to make any difference to the result.
I know that upright orientation is not well supported by browsers in general, but it's apparent that Arial font renders perfectly under Chrome, so I think there must be something I can do to fix this problem.
The font is generated in FontForge from an SVG font that uses vert-adv-y. The values for that parameter are correct in the SVG (the SVG has other errors, but I don't think they have any bearing here). I'm linking a copy of the exported OTF file. Perhaps someone may discover some sort of kerning or letter-advancing issue there.
Or perhaps Chrome is doing some sort of automatic kerning, in which case, why doesn't it happen to the Arial font? Maybe the Arial font has GPOS settings, whereas my font has old-style kerning? I really have no clue.
LINK TO DOWNLOAD OTF FILE.
Although the letters on the left of the image are lowercase, they are produced using the uppercase keys A, B, C, etc.
Okay, so this seems to have been one of those miraculous-seeming instances when a problem seemed to fix itself. I resaved the file, which then kicks it to a microservice running FontForge, which coverts the SVG to an OTF, and when it reloaded everything appeared good.
I still have no idea why, since I didn't update the microservice, and I haven't changed the SVG-generating code AFAIK. All I did was upgrade Chrome (and the new version had been showing the issue with the old file), but it should still be sending the same data. Still, I'm not complaining!
Related
I have an – character that becomes invisible when the text is rendered at a smaller font size (the applicable font-size rule is 14px, at which it is invisible; if I zoom in one level in Firefox, it becomes visible.) I have only seen this behavior on Firefox on Windows. With Firefox on Linux, I see the character at all sizes. I believe that what happens is that at smaller sizes, the dash is allowed to render as a line of zero width. So the question is, how can I remedy this? Here's what I can think of -
Try a different dash character and hope for the best
wrap the dash in a span and force it to be bigger - seems clunky
maybe my font definition is broken - this is embedded Open Sans
any other approach I'm overlooking?
Don't use any of the legacy 90's Microsoft core fonts in Windows (Arial, Verdana, etc). They have very aggressive hints intended to prevent "fat" or "blurry" stems at all costs, that result in some of those stems disappearing at small sizes. Perpetuating the pixelated look Windows users were accustomed to was the only thing Microsoft cared about at the time (there are built-in workarounds in the Microsoft rendering stack to hide the bugs of those fonts, but they don't exist in third-party apps).
Have you tried a different font-family to see if it's showing the same problem?
This is a problem of fonts, not browser support. Try to use another font like "Times New Roman" to verify.
In the case of the small icons, the most reliable solution is to use the CSS #font-face rule to ask the browser to download a particular font. Then you'll know for sure that the user has an appropriate font installed. There are even some fonts designed specifically for this use, with extra icons built in: "Font Awesome" is a well-known example.
Please look here for more information: Does every browser support all unicode?
For my current workflow I use iconic web fonts generated with the Icomoon. It’s a very easy and fun technique with an obvious advantages:
Icon behaves just like any other glyph, so any text CSS transformations can be applied to it in a natural way, like text-shadow, text-decoration, color etc.
Easy reuse, just add necessary font-family to element.
But it has major flaws do not let me sleep.
Font icons are blurry no matter how perfectly its curves are aligned to a pixel grid. Not to mention awful Windows rendering.
It’s hard to add new icons to the font, especially when vector source font is made from is not available and even lost.
It requires bunch of different font versions (woff, eot, ttf) for acceptable cross-browser support.
In the end fonts are not really for graphics at all (especially not monochrome), it seems to not the right way to use dummy empty and non-semantic <span class="icon"></span> for this purpose.
Well, the obvious alternative is SVG, which has no mentioned disadvantages. But has it’s own flaws, which do not let me use it’s easily.
A lot of small files are quite simply not acceptable in our HTTP/1.1 era.
Creating of icon modification is not an easy task and requires manual editing, which is also rather strange for our just-type-npm-install era.
I've googled for some npm packages which hasn’t satisfied me for some reasons.
So, I’m asking your advice how to manage this trivial and routine task. Is there productive and reliable way to generate SVG sprites with modified variations of original icon and bitmap fallback for old browser?
It doesn't make sense to talk about "supporting old browsers" without:
knowing what the majority of your users will be on (which'll be multiple browsers of course), and,
what support for the feature you want to use is for those browsers, for which we can use the handy http://caniuse.com
With that said, this is not going to be an answer so much as an explanation of how all those points you present "against" fonts are unfounded. Answers are great, but in this case we need to set the record straight so you can make real decisions based on facts, instead of (either "never", or "no longer" valid) preconceptions. I spent way too many years of my life working with fonts from an engineering perspective to let you maintain these claims =)
"Font icons are blurry no matter how perfectly its curves are aligned to a pixel grid. Not to mention awful Windows rendering."
This is plain old not true. As vector graphics, if they render poorly, SVG will also render poorly at the same size, although SVG will typically render worse: fonts actually allow for micro-outline-optimizations for dealing with small point sizes (.otf is better at this than .ttf, but the font maker needs to have spent the time to put them in. Pretty much all professional fonts come with that work done), and SVG doesn't, because it has no instructions in its vector graphics language to do so. As such, fonts render either on par with (if they have no optimization instructions), or better than (if they do) SVG.
For example, Font-Awesome comes with outline optimization that allows it to render pixel-perfect all the way down to a font size of 14px, which is already smaller than what browsers use as default size for text on a page (virtually all browsers agree to use a default of 16px serif). If you took its icon set and converted it to SVG, then tried to use those scaled down to match a 14px size, they would look an absolute blurry mess.
Or you can use an icon set that goes further, such as Symbol Set which has explicitly been designed for grid alignment, which means that even at sizes lower than intended, it still renders remarkably crisply.
SVG loses here.
As for Windows rendering, it might look bad, but that's not Windows's fault. Both Uniscribe and DirectWrite are really good at rendering fonts. Like, really good (which may not be a surprise, since Desktop Publishing has traditionally been Microsoft's core business since pretty much its beginnings, although that's shifting). Browsers that hook into them render fonts really well: IE has even supported web fonts since IE4... That's 1997. That's before HTML4 was even a thing, we were still on HTML3.2 at the time.
The problem isn't so much "Windows", as it's "older browser that are not IE, on Windows". Browsers didn't really care about web fonts for a very long time. It's only the last few years that major effort has suddenly gone into making sure they come with good Font shaping engines (like Harfbuzz, which is now used by Firefox and Chrome), and you won't get nice results for Fonts unless you're using a modern version of "not-IE" on a Windows machine.
And then finally a problem specific for "font vs SVG" on Windows and IE: While IE has supported web fonts since pretty much forever, SVG support only landed in IE9, so if you need to support IE8, you can't even use SVG. In the case for this very specific target audience, "fonts vs. SVG" isn't even a question, you have to go with a font.
"It’s hard to add new icons to the font, especially when vector source font is made from is not available and even lost."
No it isn't, you're still using HTML with CSS, so do what we always do when we need "letters not in this font": use font-fallback: font-family: iconfont1, iconfont2, iconetc.
"It requires bunch of different font versions (woff, eot, ttf) for acceptable cross-browser support."
Not for a few years now. These days we do not need multiple sources: caniuse shows us that everything supports WOFF and has done so for a few versions.
Even IE, although if you need to support IE8 you'll have to also find yourself an .eot (which is literally just a ttf file with an extra bit of metadata so IE will accept it... just like WOFF!) and then live with the fact that if this requires a conversion from otf to eot, you're going to end up with a shitty font because it's a lossy conversion (like converting .png to jpg. Excellent conversion software can generate a decent result, normal software will generate a mediocre result).
And because everything supports WOFF, we (thankfully) don't need ridiculous all-encompassing sets of ttf+otf+eot+woff+svg anymore, with a "bulletproof" #font-face rule that tries to optimize load order so not too many files are needlessly loaded - just use WOFF. Done. And in a pickle, add .eot as first source (with format indicator) and everything except IE will skip over it.
It's also worth looking at SVG font support: virtually nothing supports it, and those that do are in the process of deprecating it. SVG fonts as a thing has been discontinued because the results of using SVG fonts turned out to be incredibly much worse than using real fonts, underlining the explanation on point 1.
"In the end fonts are not really for graphics at all (especially not
monochrome), it seems to not the right way to use dummy empty and
non-semantic <span class="icon"></span> for this purpose."
Both of these claims are incorrect.
Fonts are for encoding vector graphics that are to be used in typesetting context. That can mean letters, or icons, or emoji; it can even be musical notes or mahjong tiles. And the way they do this has until very recently been as "single color", which is literally what monochrome is. The only place where monochrome rendering for fonts might be a problem is on monochrome monitors in which case: where the hell are your webpages being accessed that they can render webfonts, but do so on ancient-even-for-CRT technology O_O
As for semantics: if you need an icon that has no meaning inside the document and is purely UI candy then you do want a non-semantic element, so that text readers and the like for people with visual or reading disabilities don't get your icon read out loud to them, and text indexers for search engines (private or public) can safely ignore them entirely. Your icon should definitely be a non-semantic empty element that can be skipped by everything.
With all that said, what about bitmaps?
Bitmaps absolutely win at low point sizes, but—and this may be a surprise—fonts can actually contain embedded bitmaps so that they can render actual bitmaps, not vector graphics, at small point sizes.
Of course, only high grade fonts come with those, but that's also a thing you check for: does the icon font you're looking at come with bitmaps? If so, we have a winner. If not, then you might want to take the icon font you want to use, generate your icons as a bitmap file, and then manually clean up the bitmap before using it on your site.
This process is inherently manual, no utiltiy will do this for you and not get it wrong enough times that you still need to manually fix things up, but if you do go down this route, and you make your own icons based on a well known font, at a point size that makes the icons look better than the font rendering: give back to the world and send those bitmaps back to the font creators so that they can use them to build out the font's EBLC, EBDT, and EBSC tables and everyone else gets to enjoy having the bitmaps live inside the font, so we don't need to do crazy CSS sprite rendering.
I have one very surprising issue with Google Fonts. This is the site in question.
The title is normaly showing in one ligne but a friend of mine with the same Opera version like me sent me this screenshot. You can see that the title goes in two lines and brakes every think.
It's the first time I use Gfonts and must admit that there is another problem in Firefox too - the font appears so jagged!
Thanks for your advises!
The line break can be prevented simply by adding
h1 { white-space: nowrap; }
Font rendering depends on the font, on the font size, on the browser, on the operating system, on the device, their settings, and probably phase of the moon, too. Some fonts are more difficult than others, so the practical move is to pick up another font.
Unfortunately, not all browsers render all fonts exactly the same way. I guess your problem with the title in Opera is caused by the font being rendered bigger. You can try to target a specific stylesheet for Opera to solve that.
As for the jagged font, well... you have to deal with that, and choose fonts that will look sharp on every browser.
Take a look here : http://css-tricks.com/font-rendering-differences-firefox-vs-ie-vs-safari/
The jagged issue was solved thanks to this Joomla! extention - KC Cufón Font Replacement. A have included just the characters of my text - only 3KB of js and I left the same Google Web Font loading too in order the text to be shown until the extention loads.
For some reason, the spaces between words on a font that I am using disappeared. See:
http://www.fantasynews.com/
I'm using Twitter Bootstrap slightly modified to use Google Web fonts. The font in question is Oswald served up by Google web fonts:
http://www.google.com/webfonts/specimen/Oswald
And the spacing appears normal for me there.
I'm no CSS guru, but I have touched nothing in my code that should alter the way spaces are displayed. I don't know of anything that should target spaces in particular. I feel like this is some dumb mistake that I'm overlooking but I'm clueless. If I view the source, the spaces are clearly there as well as the spaces clearly being there when I inspect the element, in case some bit of javascript was playing a trick.
I am using the latest version of Chrome, although this also appears in Firefox.
I should say that the spacing problem appears specifically for the title in the boxes under latest player news
I forced it by adding word-spacing: 0.25em to my CSS, but I'm not yet 100% sure that fixed it in every browser. It's unfortunate that Google doesn't have an obvious way to link to a particular version of a font so you could be confident it won't change from under you.
Removing font-weight: normal; fixes the spacing (there are 2 instances being applied to it, Inspect Element and you will see them)
EDIT: This is a bad font, you should choose another one! It looks fine bold, but the normal version is awful.
Same problem here, i applied another font to the online website and pray for a solution :(
It may be a wrong encoded file on google's servers. Nobody's safe from minor issue like these, even the guy who encode typos in the webfont service.
I usually use Firefox(newest) for Ubuntu 12.10. Everything looks fine there. In Chrome however, your fonts are most definitely squished. I personally would choose a different font that renders more consistently. If you want to learn more check out Mozilla's MDC Kerning page to get started.
The main way that I use kerning is with the letter-spacing property.
h2 {
letter-spacing: -0.1em;
}
To say that this addresses "kerning" would be false. This actually affects "tracking". The only difference between the two is that kerning is the relationship between two character and tracking relates to a block of text.
I found an open font I liked (Crete Round) and designed some screens in Photoshop with it. When it came time to set up the CSS, I tried using both Google Fonts and fontsquirrel.com's downloadable "kit" (a zip file with four different types of fonts and a ready-made stylesheet), but both gave me strange results on Mac.
Photoshop — What I want it to look like:
Yuck — Chrome (and Safari) on Mac using an #font-face kit from fontsquirrel.com:
Chrome (and Safari) on Mac using Google Fonts (basically identical):
GOOD —Chrome on Windows (fontsquirrel):
GOOD — Hack. I found out that with any opacity (not text color alpha) less than 1.0, Chrome gave me good results (but Safari was still bad.)
Chrome on Mac using fontsquirrel, with opacity:0.999;:
Does anyone have any ideas on what is going on here, or what I might be doing wrong?
I don't think you are doing anything wrong. I also don't think there is a way around it, other than to use images instead of text where the style is absolutely crucial.
I found THIS LINK which discusses rendering engines on different operating systems (also taking different browsers into consideration).
I hope this helps!
try
html { -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; }