SVG as icon font alternative - css

Question

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?

Answer 1

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.