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.
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.
So I've been forced by circumstances into using #font-face on a site I'm developing, and have to say I'm impressed by the cross browser render quality compared to Google Fonts but it does seem to have a heavy impact on http requests compared to Cufon, as you need four variants per font for body copy and sometimes a couple for headings.
I've generally worked with cufon as I've found it to be flexible, reliable cross-browser and mobile, and despite some odd white-space issues on occasion, easy to work with. I've not done much with the Google fonts as the render sucks in some browsers.
Obviously tech has moved on! How do these three differ, are there any serious pitfalls with any of the three?
I think there are two considerations to choosing between #font-face, browser defaults, and cufon.
1. How easy it will be for you to maintain the look of your site using CSS
When using a javascript solution for any part of the site, it's important (to me at least) that the site looks decent with or without javascript. This means if a user clicks 'stop' before the page finished loading, that the type will still be in its place within the design. This means having a fallback using default fonts. I've found this to be really problematic in the past as cufon fonts' line heights can differ drastically from those of regular fonts, making it necessary to write superfluous css to control for these cases plus cross-browser irregularities-- in short, a pain in the butt.
With #font-face, particularly using google fonts or typekit, the fonts are quality picked and display predictably and consitently well (with respect to layout and line-height) cross browser. For example you can switch from proxima-nova back to the default arial with no implications in layout-- I've found this to be a challenge with cufon.
2. How the user will need to interact with the site
I like to be able to highlight text, search for text, and see a text cursor when I hover over text. You can't do that with cufon. If your site is more information heavy, cufon isn't a good choice.
I would say Cufon is a good choice for smaller sites where the aesthetic is of equal importance to the content (as in the content simply won't have the same effect without eye catching typography that your user needs to maintain via a CMS... www.macretailsolutions.com is a site that I did with Cufon that I think falls under this category). Otherwise my opinion is that on both a maintenance/development perspective and a usability standpoint, it sucks.
It's definitely true that Cufon will render much prettier in IE, but the truth is that if people are using IE in the first place, they're not too concerned about aesthetics to begin with.
Conclusion: don't use Cufon.
I don't like Microsoft's font rendering.
I've created a site for a client and the last unticked box on my debugging list is the biggest. (it's not 'live' yet btw so please ignore any other bugs - http://baked-beans.tv/bb)
I'm using font-family to import a non standard web font. It renders fine on Mac, but it looks like sick old man on its last legs on PC.
The biggest irony is that the font is actually ok to read in internet explorer 8. This is the first time I've EVER seen IE beat other browsers in anything. But anyway, the font doesn't look good in FF, Chrome, or Opera, on a PC.
So my solution is to serve different fonts to PC users. There are a lot of css hacks for different browsers, but not for different OS. the php OS detections are really really complex. I'm just looking for something simple like if(PC) do this; else do that;
Any advice would be immensely helpful
Just one other thing... Just wondering if there is a way I could prevent Windows from anti-aliasing type on the Internet? The reason why it looks so bad is because it's trying to anti-alias it, maybe if it left the poor font alone it wouldn't look so bad.
The CSS Browser Selector can target different OS's. :)
No, you can't "kill" anti-aliasing.
But, you could use http://www.stoimen.com/blog/2009/07/16/jquery-browser-and-os-detection-plugin/ for detection.
From what I saw only the headlines are crap so you could as well use http://cufon.shoqolate.com/generate/ for those and make your life easier.
My favorite article on this topic is here:
http://getsatisfaction.com/typekit/topics/typekit_fonts_rendering_horribly_on_windows_based_systems
There is a lot of good discussion including TypeKit developers on the reasoning behind that, and it has a link to an interesting article about using JavaScript to detect whether font smoothing is in use (you definitely can't do it with CSS alone).
http://www.useragentman.com/blog/2009/11/29/how-to-detect-font-smoothing-using-javascript/
Good luck.
I have a design and Myriad Pro is required. This isn't a problem. The issue is that in Photoshop they have used 'Bold Condensed'. I am not sure what this is called, I think it is one of the varients of Myriad Pro. What is the best way to emulate this on a website?
Thanks.
FontSquirrel is your best resource. Their "#font-face generator" creates code that will work with all the modern browsers.
What they do is well-explained but behind the scenes it's pretty complicated. You can read up on the CSS aspects on Paul Irish's blog.
Edit
I just realized that nobody has answered your real question...
1.) Myriad Pro is a family of fonts, implemented as a collection of files, with names like Myriad Pro.otf, Myriad Pro Bold.otf, and so forth. (The actual names are OS-specific.) Myriad Pro Bold Condensed is one of those files. I don't know if it comes with the standard package or whether it costs extra.
2.) You cannot "emulate" this. You can either use the actual font on your webpage (via the #font-face embedding method described above), or create a graphic. The designers probably expect you to create graphics, because designers [tirade deleted] when it comes to implementation.
3.) As has been pointed out, embedding supposedly requires an appropriate license, and I don't know if you can get such a license for this particular face. ("Supposedly", because [tirade deleted], but I'm not a lawyer.)
The 100% guaranteed way is to render it to an image.
CSS3 supports font-face but this will not give you wide support.
#font-face
{
font-family: 'Myriad Pro';
src: url('Myriad-Pro.ttf');
}
You will also need to check legal agreements to see if they allow embedding this font in your pages.
You could also try Shaun Inman's sIFR3, although CSS3 is likely to be the better alternative.
However, see license first. In many cases you can not use #font-face.
Here is post on adobe about myriad license for web.
http://forums.adobe.com/message/3654436