font-display is a new CSS property that allows developers to control how fonts are rendered depending on if they load quickly enough. There's been a few articles on it:
Controlling Font Performance with font-display - Google Developers
font-display for the Masses
None of them mention icon fonts. The specification does have an example that mentions icon fonts for the block value, but to me it doesn't make sense to use that:
'block'
Gives the font face a short block period (3s is recommended in most cases) and an infinite swap period.
If I understand the specification correctly, this means if the icons haven't loaded after the "short block period", the fallback font will be used, resulting in random letters appearing in their place.
If I use the optional value, the random letters will never appear but neither will the icons if they haven't loaded in the "extremely small block period".
There doesn't appear to be a value for giving an infinite block period without swap (so it would show invisible text until and unless the font loads). Is there a reason behind this and is there a workaround?
font-display: block;
As you commented, block still has a swap period; so it's still rendered until it's loaded.
Quoting Chris Coyier:
Wanna hear something quite unfortunate? We already mentioned font-display: block;. Wouldn't you think it, uh, well, blocked the rendering of text until the custom font loads? It doesn't. It's still got a swap period. It would be the perfect thing for something like icon fonts where the icon (probably) has no meaning unless the custom font loads. Alas, there is no font-display solution for that.
Considering alternatives:
I've also been there. If you have the chance, you might need to switch to SVG for icons. It has a few advantages over font-icons: SVG is better at pretty much everything than icon fonts.
Even Zach Leatherman, web fonts expert, has opinions about it on his very famous Comprehensive Guide to Font Loading Strategies.
This guide is not intended for use with font icons, which have different loading priorities and use cases. Also, SVG is probably a better long term choice.
Related
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'm searching for a method to tell the browser to render each glyph rendered with a specific font, e.g. FreeMono, in a bigger font size than glyphs rendered with other fonts. The reason for that is, that I use characters like ᚠ in a website and these glyphs are rendered using FreeMono in Chrome (see inspect element → computed → rendered fonts) and they look always like they're to small to fit the surrounding text. Is there any way I can do that?
You cannot. CSS has no tools for such font-specific tuning, apart from the font-size-adjust property, which has very limited effect, limited browser support, and buggy support.
If you use a character such as “ᚠ” U+16A0 RUNIC LETTER FEHU FEOH FE F on a web page, then it will be up to each browser in each system which font (if any) is used to render it, at least if you do not explicitly suggest some font(s) that contain it. It may be FreeMono, but most computers in the world do not have it. Besides, in FreeMono, “ᚠ” is rather large—taller than uppercase Latin letters. So if it looks too small, the reason might be a mix of fonts.
To make, say, Runic letters match the style of other text, you should try and find a font that is suitable for both—so that you can use a single font, designer by a typographer to make things fit. You would then probably need to find a suitable free font and use it as a downloadable font (with #font-face). It might be FreeSerif or FreeSans; only in very peculiar circumstances would I consider FreeMono, a monospace font, suitable for rendering computer code in some cases and mostly unsuitable for everything else.
See images:
Firefox on Mac:
Firefox on Chrome:
On chrome you can see that the same font using the same styling takes more room. What can I do so that all browsers will render the font the same way rather than adding more width to it?
I am using a font with #font-face property.
Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do about the way each browser renders your chosen typeface. Check out this article, it explains how different browsers and operating systems render different type face files:
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2012/04/24/a-closer-look-at-font-rendering/
In the meantime, you can do two things.
1.) There are many fonts that can be used that are effected by this rendering difference much less. Experiment with different fonts that hold the same esthetic value of the font that you are using, and try to find one that not only fits your typographic needs but also have a less distinctive difference between their individual renderings across different platforms.
2.) Create a script to sense the user's browser/OS and use that script to adjust your font-weight accordingly.
Best of luck.
You forgot to mention which of the two cases is the correct font rendering.
A few ideas that come to mind:
Since you mentioned using font-weight:600 I would try to replace it with normal/bold (depending which result you want) and check if it makes any difference. If the font file does not support a weight for 600 the browser will go on interpreting it by itself - sometimes it takes bold sometimes normal.
If the problematic browser is Chrome you can also try playing with font-smoothing - sometimes it helps improving the font rendering:
-webkit-font-smoothing: none || antialiased || subpixel-antialiased
Also I'm not sure how you are implementing the #font-face - if you wrote it yourself I suggest generating your #font-face rule trough some service like Fontsquirell since it will generate a crossbrowser compatible code which often eliminates a few problems.
For more help you will need to expand your question with a bit more data - add the #font-face code, font name and specify which is the correct font rendering. Poor questions get poor answers.
I'm working with some really great designers. In translating their design, they are asking me why sometimes we don't render non-system fonts exactly as depicted in their designs. A very recent example can be shown in the image attached to this question (ignore red annotations):
I'm using fonts from fonts.com via a javascript include, which allows me to utilize new font-family in my css. I want to draw your attention to two things:
a) On the left, notice the description text "In an effort to ..." is much bolder than "Lorem ipsum ...". Font is "Droid Serif W01 Italic".
b) On the right, notice "MEET ONE" is much bolder than "COMMERZBANK". The font family is "UniversLTW01-57Condense 723821".
I made sure font-weight:normal. And yet, things still look bold on some computers...and it seems to vary depending on which OS and browser you are on. It seems like the only way I can modify the weight of these fonts in an aesthetically pleasing way is by choosing another variation of the font family like the oblique or condensed version (if they exist). But often times, I still can't get the weight to render properly on all the different OS and browser combinations.
How do you guys address these issues? Are there techniques I can use to make the fonts render exactly as depicted in designs regardless of the viewers operating system and browser?
From my experience I always find that font-rendering on the web is nowhere near as good as it is in Photoshop or other design tools. This usually leads to problems like this.
In Photoshop, a designer can use "extra" settings like: "Sharp", "Crisp", "Smooth" and "Strong". All of these variants make the font rendering much nicer. These attributes are not available to us as developers though.
It all comes down to the anti-aliasing of the fonts which all browsers implement in different ways. It is impossible to get fonts to render in the same way across all browsers. This is a reason to use only fonts which are specifically created for the web since they are designed to have good anti-aliasing on screens in the most common sizes.
There are however, some tricks you can try. I have little to no experience with them but hopefully my background answer and these links will give you inspiration in where to find more information about this complex issue.
To me, the left image looks like a classic anti-alias problem. The right picture, I'm not so sure. It almost looks like another font and the size should be big enough for it to render properly.
Check these links out if you wish to read more, hopefully they can be helpful:
Does CSS support text anti-aliasing such as "crisp, sharp etc" yet?
How to do font antialiasing in web page?
Webfont Smoothing and Antialiasing in Firefox and Opera
http://blog.typekit.com/2010/10/21/type-rendering-web-browsers/
"The #font-face CSS at-rule allows authors to specify online fonts to display text on their web pages. By allowing authors to provide their own fonts, #font-face eliminates the need to depend on the limited number of fonts users have installed on their computers. The #font-face at-rule may be used not only at the top level of a CSS, but also inside any CSS conditional-group at-rule." -MDN
#font-face {
[font-family: <family-name>;]?
[src: [ <uri> [format(<string>#)]? | <font-face-name> ]#;]?
[unicode-range: <urange>#;]?
[font-variant: <font-variant>;]?
[font-feature-settings: normal|<feature-tag-value>#;]?
[font-stretch: <font-stretch>;]?
[font-weight: <weight>];
[font-style: <style>];
}
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/CSS/#font-face
Its not a perfect solution, but it may get you closer to where you want to be.
We face the same problems you raised and I won't duplicate the good information that's already been covered here. Anti aliasing and CSS are just a part of the picture. So I wanted to touch upon how the typeface foundries and licensing can figure into things.
On the PC side, the reality of webfont services like fonts.com and Typekit usually means results that are noticebly worse. That's regardless of browser.
When you're using a webfonts service you're at the mercy of how that service handles font embedding.
However, if you're using a font that's optimized for web usage and it's available for purchase where you can directly control the embedding of the font files yourself, this article has an good tip to improve rendering on Chrome for Windows.
Examples of foundries that sell (or Google Webfonts at no-cost) fonts for direct embedding are FontSpring, MyFonts, Commercial Type, etc.
Hoefler Type just debuted their own font service that renders beautifully on the PC. It's similar to fonts.com and Typekit in the sense you don't host or embed fonts directly. They've went to an unprecedented level to address all the common issues with webfonts. They adjusted the scale of their font weights and customized their deployment for individual browsers. The limitation is, like many other foundries, as of now you can only buy their typefaces.
Because of these complications we'll usually consider the options for web usage of individual typefaces early on in a project.
From personal experience and high-level research I found that you can come close to achieving a pleasant result using either sIFR (Scalable Inman Flash Replacement) or pure javascript alternatives like Typeface (http://typeface.neocracy.org:81/) and Cufon (http://cufon.shoqolate.com/generate/). I have been using Cufon for a while and I find it the easiest and most effective way to get close to the results you are looking for at the moment. Hope that helps if you still havent come across those solutions yet.
So, I know that this isn't something that is normally a good idea for a website, but I have a special purpose/intent for such a use:
I have a multilingual dictionary that I'm working with online, where I need one of the languages to be in a specific font, from a file that I specify locally. However, I want this language to be rendered ONLY in this font, as if it is rendered using any other font, it will render incorrectly. That's all fine and dandy, and I can load the file in CSS and whatnot.
But I want to make it so that if it can't load that file, either for one reason or another, or something goes wrong, it can't go to another font. Basically, render this text using this font, and if you can't do that, don't just try and render it with Arial or whatever is the default -- show me blocks, show me a stark something.
I've spent a bit looking around, but am not sure what in CSS I would be using for this. Suggestions/help? Thanks :)
As an update to this question, since April 2013 there exists the Adobe Blank Font, which can be used for that purpose.
You may build a cross-browser css with FontQuirrel WebfontGenerator and the Adobe Blank font files.
If you just need the font in OpenType format you can use this single css file with the already embedded font
You can't do this. Text is text and text has to have a font that it is to be rendered in. If you really want, there's probably some weird JavaScript function that can detect the actual font being used for the text and if it doesn't match the one you want, then you can hide it or something. But in the end, your only option is to have the text displayed in some obscure font, or completely hide the text. If the text is visible, it has to be rendered using some font.
You could also theoretically create your own font where all the characters are just blank, but that seems highly illogical and such a waste of resources to make people download a font just so it can display meaningless emptiness.
There is no "don't render fonts" option. It's a font, it needs to be rendered, or else it's hidden visually in the DOM.
You could use Javascript to find out the font being applied to a certain block, and if it's not the font you want, just hide it. Or display a message.
Another solution is somehow specify the content to be empty. For example, I'm trying to override the +/- character that a Webix tree displays using Font Awesome:
#lhn-tree-container .webix_tree_open:before {
content: '';
}
This only works with the :before and :after pseudo-elements though.