I wanted to know if loading huge webfonts can cause issues on the browser ?
I have to use a Korean font ( Malgun ) which is 4Mo. And the bold one which is 4 megs too.
I use them on an ipad exclusively for a phonegap project.
Is there a risk of taking a lot of memory ( I mean, 8Mo ) into the browser ?
Thanks for your answers
Yes, this will affect the browser in that you will have to download the font when you first visit the site. That is a pretty large font file, though. You should consider taking the font into FontLab and truncating it to only the glyphs you need. You may also want to look to see if there is a vector or web version of the font.
If these aren't an option, you could also try asynchronously loading the font. Here is a great post on CSS tricks about loading things asynchronously. You would simply substitute the JS file in this example with a stylesheet containing your #font-face declarations. Note: This method may cause a flash of unstyled text.
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.
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.
I've been wondering myself why on windows my font looks smaller, and much crappier than on OSX.
Screenshot Mac VS Windows : http://screencast.com/t/UUxqLRhM
Is that because i used "em" on some rules instead of "px" ?
Thanks.
(This is from a comment, but I'll post as an answer.)
This is nothing on your end, and the culprit is different font rendering engines. Mac OS X tries to render fonts exactly as they were designed, whereas Windows tries to alter them slightly to make them more readable. The problem is, with certain fonts and sizes, it actually makes them look worse. (This article is a good read on the subject.)
If you make the font bigger, it will probably make it look better on Windows. I would venture to say that if you removed the bold font-weight, it would also look cleaner. You could also try a different font.
Overall though, all you can do is just play with different settings and see what looks good and what doesn't; the actual rendering is out of your control.
Different browsers do have different standard font-sizes. Maybo other font-types and the different way to show fonts of the OS.
100% same look is... not possible
The way MAC and PC handle fonts is different, but that is not what is happening here. You have set a font that is not web-safe, "MyHelveticaBold", and the font windows is using is clearly not the same as the one on your Mac. If you don't want to use a web-safe font then you should use open source web fonts that you can serve to the user upon visiting.
There are some CSS properties that can adjust how a font is rendered such as -webkit-font-smoothing. Read more here: http://blog.typekit.com/2011/01/26/css-properties-that-affect-type-rendering/
I'm trying to use the MusiSync font to embed a sharp and flat symbol in a line of text. In order to keep these symbols from being tiny I have to make their point size twice the size of the rest of the text. Unfortunately, this messes up the line height in Internet Explorer and I cannot find a way to control it. You can download the MusiSync font at:
http://www.icogitate.com/~ergosum/fonts/musicfonts.htm
My attempt to use this font in a web page can be found at:
http://www.williamsportwebdeveloper.com/MusiSync.htm
I opened up Photoshop and used the font you link to. There is a huge amount of white-space above each glyph in the font itself. The font is poorly designed.
If you set your style to this, you'll see the issue:
.style2 {
font-family: MusiSync;
font-size: 24pt;
border:1px solid #000000;
}
The problem appears in FireFiox 3 as well, its just manifesting itself a little differently.
You may be able to hack your way around this somehow, but it's going to be ugly. Unless you're using a lot of different font sizes, you may be better of using images.
Seeing that you are trying to use a very uncommon font, why not implement sIFR?
It will (possibly) solve some of your line height issues as well.
Read up here.
sIFR is an excellent choice for non-standard fonts.
You embed the font in a flash movie (don't worry most of the work is done for you) and add a bit of code to your page and the sIFR javascript will replace classes/id/tags etc with a flash movie containing the text/font that you're aiming for:
From http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/sifr/
A normal (X)HTML page is loaded into the browser.
A javascript function is run which first checks that Flash is installed and then looks for whatever tags, ids, or classes you designate.
If Flash isn’t installed (or obviously if javascript is turned off), the (X)HTML page displays as normal and nothing further occurs. If Flash is installed, javascript traverses through the source of your page measuring each element you’ve designated as something you’d like “sIFRed”.
Once measured, the script creates Flash movies of the same dimensions and overlays them on top of the original elements, pumping the original browser text in as a Flash variable.
Actionscript inside of each Flash file then draws that text in your chosen typeface at a 6 point size and scales it up until it fits snugly inside the Flash movie.
An excellent cross browser platform indepent solution for non-standard fonts.