Force FONT

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Zrinko, Feb 28, 2005.

  1. Zrinko

    Zrinko Guest

    Hey!

    If somebody tries to see my web page, and I'm using a font that's not the
    usual type, is it posibble to somehow make the user browsing the site see
    the font even though he doesn't have it installed on his computer? Any
    advices or links would be useful. Thank you.

    regards,
    Zrinko.
    Zrinko, Feb 28, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Zrinko

    saz Guest

    In article <ys49503agsow.1mzndn849f99u$>,
    says...
    > Hey!
    >
    > If somebody tries to see my web page, and I'm using a font that's not the
    > usual type, is it posibble to somehow make the user browsing the site see
    > the font even though he doesn't have it installed on his computer? Any
    > advices or links would be useful. Thank you.
    >
    > regards,
    > Zrinko.
    >

    The viewer will only see the specified font if it is installed on
    his/her computer, so always add a few more "safe" choices to your
    stylesheet such as arial, geneva, verdana, etc. to come close to your
    desired font. The only way around this is if the font is part of an
    image.
    saz, Feb 28, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Zrinko

    Steve Pugh Guest

    Zrinko <> wrote:

    >If somebody tries to see my web page, and I'm using a font that's not the
    >usual type, is it posibble to somehow make the user browsing the site see
    >the font even though he doesn't have it installed on his computer? Any
    >advices or links would be useful. Thank you.


    See the thread "Problem with fonts" from last week.

    Summary: No you can't make your font appear for 100% of users.

    Methods that may help you reach some percentage of users:
    1. Use graphics (non-scalable, bandwidth intensive)
    2. Use WEFT (Win IE only)
    3. Use sIFR (requires Flash and JS to be enabled and good DOM support,
    only suitable for small amounts of text)

    If your font is more important to your message than your actual words
    then the WWW is the wrong medium.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
    Steve Pugh, Feb 28, 2005
    #3
  4. On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:35:53 +0100, Zrinko wrote:

    > Hey!
    >
    > If somebody tries to see my web page, and I'm using a font that's not the
    > usual type, is it posibble to somehow make the user browsing the site see
    > the font even though he doesn't have it installed on his computer? Any
    > advices or links would be useful. Thank you.
    >
    > regards,
    > Zrinko.


    Another option is to put the font on your site and recommend users
    download and install it to view the site. Check out legal issues about
    ownership and distribution of the font before you do so.

    Those that want to see your site as you designed it, will at least get a
    step closer to it. Those like myself - I won't download a font to see a
    site, I'll leave the site first.

    Carolyn
    Carolyn Marenger, Feb 28, 2005
    #4
  5. Zrinko

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Steve Pugh wrote:

    > If your font is more important to your message than your actual words
    > then the WWW is the wrong medium.


    Duh. Completely wrong. :) The look and feel may BE the message. There
    may be no content beyond what it looks like. WWW is an entertainment
    medium as well you know. Dont box yourself in just because it's trendy!


    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
    SpaceGirl, Feb 28, 2005
    #5
  6. Zrinko

    Steve Pugh Guest

    SpaceGirl <> wrote:
    >Steve Pugh wrote:
    >
    >> If your font is more important to your message than your actual words
    >> then the WWW is the wrong medium.

    >
    >Duh. Completely wrong. :)


    Again?

    >The look and feel may BE the message.


    Then the message can not be communicated on the WWW. It can be
    communicated on some subset of the WWW and the techniques I outlined
    can be used to reach various of those subsets.

    >There may be no content beyond what it looks like.


    Then use an image. But don't expect everyone to be able to see it.
    Presumably the alt attribute will be empty as users who can't see the
    image can't get the content here at all?

    >WWW is an entertainment medium as well you know.


    Entertainme covers a lot of things.

    The point here is probably the difference between art (where without
    the exact font the whole sense of the piece is changed) and design
    (where the limitations of the medium are understood and where a font
    can be used to enhance an experience but where the underlying message
    can exist without that font). Normally I assume that people posting
    here are designing web sites for some purpose not producing works of
    art for art's sake.

    >Dont box yourself in just because it's trendy!


    Oh, I'm not into _that_. Where's brucie when you need him?

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
    Steve Pugh, Feb 28, 2005
    #6
  7. Zrinko

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Steve Pugh wrote:
    > SpaceGirl <> wrote:
    >
    >>Steve Pugh wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>If your font is more important to your message than your actual words
    >>>then the WWW is the wrong medium.

    >>
    >>Duh. Completely wrong. :)

    >
    >
    > Again?
    >
    >
    >>The look and feel may BE the message.

    >
    >
    > Then the message can not be communicated on the WWW. It can be
    > communicated on some subset of the WWW and the techniques I outlined
    > can be used to reach various of those subsets.


    LOL you what? If it is delivered via WWW (Internet, HTTP) then it is
    being comminicated OVER WWW. You might as well say graphics are a subset
    of the WWW given your definition :) There are no "subsets"! WWW is a
    delivery medium. It can contain anything. Just one of those things it
    contains may be HTML - or video, or graphics, or anything - all
    contained with an HTML document.

    >>There may be no content beyond what it looks like.

    >
    >
    > Then use an image. But don't expect everyone to be able to see it.
    > Presumably the alt attribute will be empty as users who can't see the
    > image can't get the content here at all?
    >


    No, you take the usual steps. I was just annoyed by a bunch of people in
    here who think standards, accessibility etc etc are more important that
    actually providing something INTERESTING. Everyone is so fucking
    bothered about all this crap they are forgetting about THE DESIGN.
    Whatever happened to innovation? For crying outloud, everyone is turning
    into short-sighed web programmers who think validating HTML = the best
    side ever design, and that anything vaguelly wiffing of "design" is bad.

    >>WWW is an entertainment medium as well you know.

    >
    > Entertainme covers a lot of things.


    Uh huh.

    > The point here is probably the difference between art (where without
    > the exact font the whole sense of the piece is changed) and design
    > (where the limitations of the medium are understood and where a font
    > can be used to enhance an experience but where the underlying message
    > can exist without that font). Normally I assume that people posting
    > here are designing web sites for some purpose not producing works of
    > art for art's sake.


    Of course. But art and design are part of EVERYTHING. Especially the
    latter. Without DESIGN you might as well not even start.

    >>Dont box yourself in just because it's trendy!

    >
    >
    > Oh, I'm not into _that_. Where's brucie when you need him?
    >
    > Steve


    *kissy* :)

    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
    SpaceGirl, Feb 28, 2005
    #7
  8. Zrinko

    Steve Pugh Guest

    SpaceGirl <> wrote:
    >Steve Pugh wrote:
    >> SpaceGirl <> wrote:
    >>>Steve Pugh wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>If your font is more important to your message than your actual words
    >>>>then the WWW is the wrong medium.
    >>>
    >>>The look and feel may BE the message.

    >>
    >> Then the message can not be communicated on the WWW. It can be
    >> communicated on some subset of the WWW and the techniques I outlined
    >> can be used to reach various of those subsets.

    >
    >LOL you what?


    Which of my words did you have difficulty understanding?

    >f it is delivered via WWW (Internet, HTTP) then it is
    >being comminicated OVER WWW.


    But if only a portion of the WWW can actually get the message that is
    communicated by these words in this exact font then only a portion can
    get the message. You're the one who claims that the look and feel may
    be the message. Not an adjunct to the message, not an enhancement of
    the message, not part of the message, but the actual message itself.
    How do you get that message across to people who can't see your font?

    >You might as well say graphics are a subset
    >of the WWW given your definition :)


    They are.

    >There are no "subsets"!


    Of course there are.

    >WWW is a delivery medium. It can contain anything.


    And not everyone on the WWW can see everything that is delivered over
    it. Or hadn't you realised that yet?

    >Just one of those things it
    >contains may be HTML - or video, or graphics, or anything - all
    >contained with an HTML document.


    You don't even need the HTML.

    >>>There may be no content beyond what it looks like.

    >>
    >> Then use an image. But don't expect everyone to be able to see it.
    >> Presumably the alt attribute will be empty as users who can't see the
    >> image can't get the content here at all?

    >
    >No, you take the usual steps.


    Please elaborate?

    If the look and feel is the message then how do I communicate that
    message if I can not use the look and feel?

    I agree that there are cases where a particulat font may be needed (a
    typography tutorial may need to explain differences between fonts
    showing particular fonts) and in that case an image is the best option
    but by it's very nature the information in that image can not be fully
    communicated via an alt attribute. So the subset of the WWW that can
    not see the image can not get the message.

    On the other hand if the font is an enhancement to the message (and
    not the message itself) you can use any of the techniques I outlined
    in my first post in this thread with the understanding that some part
    of your audience will get the message in its unenhanced form.

    >I was just annoyed by a bunch of people in
    >here who think standards, accessibility etc etc are more important that
    >actually providing something INTERESTING.


    Name one person who has ever said that? Give us references to some
    posts? Everyone here (well excepting Richard of course) is into
    providing interesting content. Those with some design talent will also
    be able to present that content in an interesting way.

    I'm not a designer (look at http://www.stevepugh.net/VTT/ for my
    latest personal site), I don't speak on design issues, but every day
    in my working life I advise designers on what is and is not possible
    and practical on the WWW. And that's what I'm doing in this thread -
    if your message needs a particular font then the message can not reach
    the whole WWW. That's a fact of the medium.

    > Everyone is so fucking
    >bothered about all this crap they are forgetting about THE DESIGN.


    As I said, part of design, indeed the key part, is understanding the
    medium you are working in.

    >Whatever happened to innovation?


    It's alive and well.

    >For crying outloud, everyone is turning
    >into short-sighed web programmers who think validating HTML = the best
    >side ever design, and that anything vaguelly wiffing of "design" is bad.


    Again, who says that?

    Validating HTML is about validating HTML, it has nothing to do with
    design. There is a huge range of designs that can be built with valid,
    semantically sound, accessible, usable code. A good designer listens
    when the developer tells them when they've strayed outside the
    possibilities of the medium. A bad designer stamps their foot and
    insists on a 200kb+ page with flash and iframes and all the text
    rendered as graphics. Oddly enough such sites tend to get redeveloped
    rather quickly when the marketing department looks at the results...

    >> The point here is probably the difference between art (where without
    >> the exact font the whole sense of the piece is changed) and design
    >> (where the limitations of the medium are understood and where a font
    >> can be used to enhance an experience but where the underlying message
    >> can exist without that font). Normally I assume that people posting
    >> here are designing web sites for some purpose not producing works of
    >> art for art's sake.

    >
    >Of course. But art and design are part of EVERYTHING. Especially the
    >latter. Without DESIGN you might as well not even start.


    If a designer tells me that a site _must_ use a particular font then I
    will conclude that said designer either doesn't understand the WWW as
    a medium or that they have pretensions of art. They can suggest a font
    and depending on a number of factors that font may or may not be seen
    by some percentage of visitors.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
    Steve Pugh, Feb 28, 2005
    #8
  9. Zrinko

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Steve Pugh wrote:

    >>f it is delivered via WWW (Internet, HTTP) then it is
    >>being comminicated OVER WWW.

    >
    >
    > But if only a portion of the WWW can actually get the message that is
    > communicated by these words in this exact font then only a portion can
    > get the message. You're the one who claims that the look and feel may
    > be the message. Not an adjunct to the message, not an enhancement of
    > the message, not part of the message, but the actual message itself.
    > How do you get that message across to people who can't see your font?


    They do get the font. You were the one who said they cannot. Graphics or
    Flash. While I dont think these are realy solutions for most cases,
    there ARE occasions where you have to be opened minded and say, yeah
    okay, for the sake of brand we can have a paragraph rendered as an
    image. Or Flash. It is REALLY arrogant and short sighted to simply say
    "no", which is what you did. You have to think more creatively than
    that. The only limits here are ones YOU are setting. That doesn't
    automatically make them applicable to everyone else.

    >>You might as well say graphics are a subset
    >>of the WWW given your definition :)

    >
    > They are.
    >


    They are part of it.

    >>There are no "subsets"!

    >
    > Of course there are.


    Only in a way that books are a subset of "media printed on paper".

    >>WWW is a delivery medium. It can contain anything.

    >
    > And not everyone on the WWW can see everything that is delivered over
    > it. Or hadn't you realised that yet?


    Of COURSE. Duh. But you dont make web sites for "everone on the WWW". If
    you're even trying, you're doing it wrong. You design for your audience,
    not everyone.

    >>>Then use an image. But don't expect everyone to be able to see it.
    >>>Presumably the alt attribute will be empty as users who can't see the
    >>>image can't get the content here at all?

    >>
    >>No, you take the usual steps.

    >
    >
    > Please elaborate?


    You do what is required to indicate a particular bit of media is not
    available without the correct "viewer". You also provide the legally
    required accessible versions of your content, where possible.

    > If the look and feel is the message then how do I communicate that
    > message if I can not use the look and feel?


    You misunderstood :)

    > I agree that there are cases where a particulat font may be needed (a
    > typography tutorial may need to explain differences between fonts
    > showing particular fonts) and in that case an image is the best option
    > but by it's very nature the information in that image can not be fully
    > communicated via an alt attribute. So the subset of the WWW that can
    > not see the image can not get the message.


    Yes. Because you dont design for everyone. Like any form of media, you
    design for a particular audience.

    > On the other hand if the font is an enhancement to the message (and
    > not the message itself) you can use any of the techniques I outlined
    > in my first post in this thread with the understanding that some part
    > of your audience will get the message in its unenhanced form.


    Yes of course. I'm not arguing against your technical advice at all (you
    were quite right). I'm talking about bigger design issues :)

    >>I was just annoyed by a bunch of people in
    >>here who think standards, accessibility etc etc are more important that
    >>actually providing something INTERESTING.

    >
    > Name one person who has ever said that? Give us references to some
    > posts? Everyone here (well excepting Richard of course) is into
    > providing interesting content. Those with some design talent will also
    > be able to present that content in an interesting way.


    Just read over the posts. See what the subjects are. It's all technical,
    or people bitching about what you cannot.

    > I'm not a designer (look at http://www.stevepugh.net/VTT/ for my
    > latest personal site), I don't speak on design issues, but every day
    > in my working life I advise designers on what is and is not possible
    > and practical on the WWW. And that's what I'm doing in this thread -
    > if your message needs a particular font then the message can not reach
    > the whole WWW. That's a fact of the medium.


    Which is wrong. Because there are ways of delivery a font to a client,
    so long as they have a visual way of displaying content (ah, gotta have
    your accessibility caveat :))

    >>Everyone is so fucking
    >>bothered about all this crap they are forgetting about THE DESIGN.

    >
    > As I said, part of design, indeed the key part, is understanding the
    > medium you are working in.


    Yes.

    >
    >>Whatever happened to innovation?

    >
    > It's alive and well.


    Very little evidence of this outside of rich media sites.

    >>For crying outloud, everyone is turning
    >>into short-sighed web programmers who think validating HTML = the best
    >>side ever design, and that anything vaguelly wiffing of "design" is bad.

    >
    >
    > Again, who says that?
    >


    It's a general theme in here, and a number of other groups. Nobody ever
    comments on designs. They just bitch about technical stuff.

    > Validating HTML is about validating HTML, it has nothing to do with
    > design.


    Exactly.

    > There is a huge range of designs that can be built with valid,
    > semantically sound, accessible, usable code. A good designer listens
    > when the developer tells them when they've strayed outside the
    > possibilities of the medium. A bad designer stamps their foot and
    > insists on a 200kb+ page with flash and iframes and all the text
    > rendered as graphics. Oddly enough such sites tend to get redeveloped
    > rather quickly when the marketing department looks at the results...


    Yes.

    >>Of course. But art and design are part of EVERYTHING. Especially the
    >>latter. Without DESIGN you might as well not even start.

    >
    >
    > If a designer tells me that a site _must_ use a particular font then I
    > will conclude that said designer either doesn't understand the WWW as
    > a medium or that they have pretensions of art. They can suggest a font
    > and depending on a number of factors that font may or may not be seen
    > by some percentage of visitors.
    >
    > Steve


    You'd be wrong then. Sometimes "font X" is EXACTLY what is required
    because it's part of brand or image. You must find a way to achieve that
    without making your site unsable. A good designer will know that "fond
    X" cannot be used for everything on the site, so wouldn't ask for it in
    the first place. However were it IS required, you should provide it.

    It is terribly short sighted to suggest WWW cannot be aristic, which
    seems to be the jist of your comment. To me, it seems that you dont have
    a clue about interacting with people on an emotional level. Art/Design
    are one and the same thing. HOW design is more important that the
    content. Always. If you get the design wrong, you may as well have the
    no content. If you get the design right, it in itself can be form of
    content (and this kinda gets very recursive. Never mind!).



    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
    SpaceGirl, Feb 28, 2005
    #9
  10. Zrinko

    kchayka Guest

    SpaceGirl wrote:
    >
    > Everyone is so fucking
    > bothered about all this crap they are forgetting about THE DESIGN.


    I wouldn't be so bothered if THE DESIGN didn't often get in the way of
    actually using a site. Crappy design is abundant, good design is pretty
    rare.

    --
    Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
    Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
    kchayka, Feb 28, 2005
    #10
  11. Zrinko

    Toby Inkster Guest

    SpaceGirl wrote:

    > For crying outloud, everyone is turning into short-sighed web
    > programmers who think validating HTML = the best side ever design, and
    > that anything vaguelly wiffing of "design" is bad.


    And the inverse would be better?

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Feb 28, 2005
    #11
  12. Zrinko

    SpaceGirl Guest

    kchayka wrote:
    > SpaceGirl wrote:
    >
    >>Everyone is so fucking
    >>bothered about all this crap they are forgetting about THE DESIGN.

    >
    >
    > I wouldn't be so bothered if THE DESIGN didn't often get in the way of
    > actually using a site. Crappy design is abundant, good design is pretty
    > rare.
    >


    Agreed :/

    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
    SpaceGirl, Feb 28, 2005
    #12
  13. Zrinko

    Steve Pugh Guest

    SpaceGirl <> wrote:
    >Steve Pugh wrote:
    >
    >>>f it is delivered via WWW (Internet, HTTP) then it is
    >>>being comminicated OVER WWW.

    >>
    >> But if only a portion of the WWW can actually get the message that is
    >> communicated by these words in this exact font then only a portion can
    >> get the message. You're the one who claims that the look and feel may
    >> be the message. Not an adjunct to the message, not an enhancement of
    >> the message, not part of the message, but the actual message itself.
    >> How do you get that message across to people who can't see your font?

    >
    >They do get the font. You were the one who said they cannot.


    I said that not all of them will get the font. You have yet to show
    otherwise.

    > Graphics or Flash. While I dont think these are realy solutions for most cases,
    >there ARE occasions where you have to be opened minded and say, yeah
    >okay, for the sake of brand we can have a paragraph rendered as an
    >image. Or Flash.


    And the people who don't have images or flash switched on don't get
    the font. Just like I said.

    >It is REALLY arrogant and short sighted to simply say
    >"no", which is what you did.


    I said that not everyone will get the font, and I offered methods that
    will get the font to certain percentages, that's the best that can be
    done. Can you show a way to have everyone see the font?

    >You have to think more creatively than that.


    I offered solutions that will reach large portions of the audience

    >The only limits here are ones YOU are setting.


    No it's a limitation of the WWW as a medium. Or can you demonstrate a
    way that means that every single visitor will get the font? You can't
    because it isn't possible.

    >That doesn't automatically make them applicable to everyone else.


    Yes it is. Unless you know the personal and technological profile of
    every individual visitor your site will ever have you can not claim
    that the font can be seen by all visitors.

    >>>You might as well say graphics are a subset of the WWW given your definition :)

    >>
    >> They are.

    >
    >They are part of it.


    Glad we agree. Or are you using some strange definition of subset that
    means something other "a part of"?

    >>>WWW is a delivery medium. It can contain anything.

    >>
    >> And not everyone on the WWW can see everything that is delivered over
    >> it. Or hadn't you realised that yet?

    >
    >Of COURSE. Duh. But you dont make web sites for "everone on the WWW".


    Potentially. Why should I not?

    >If you're even trying, you're doing it wrong.


    Not at all. A web page is available to everyone on the web and I don't
    want to do anything to reduce that. Even if they get a less enhanced
    presentation or fewer bells and whistles they can still get that
    content. And if the content can not presented in any way other than
    with a certain font then that is impossible and hence that content is
    not suited for the WWW. It can still be put up on the WWW but some
    people may get it wrong.

    Let's say someone wanted to put text from Mein Kampf (is that a
    Godwin? I think it's a fair example here) online displayed in a comedy
    font. Users who see it in the ordinary font will get a very different
    impression than those who see it in the comedy font.

    This is the sort of thing that I'm talking about when I say that if a
    font is essential for a message (i.e. to elicit a certain emotional
    response) then the message is not suitable for the WWW. Not some
    marketing blurb displayed in the corporate typeface - in that case the
    typeface and copywriting will hopefully complement each other so that
    if the typeface isn't see then message still has the same tone.

    > You design for your audience, not everyone.


    I have never seen any convincing statistics that give a string
    correlation between demographics and/or interest groups and the
    technology they use or the disabilities they may have. If you have
    maybe you could the post the URL here.

    >>>>Then use an image. But don't expect everyone to be able to see it.
    >>>>Presumably the alt attribute will be empty as users who can't see the
    >>>>image can't get the content here at all?
    >>>
    >>>No, you take the usual steps.

    >>
    >> Please elaborate?

    >
    >You do what is required to indicate a particular bit of media is not
    >available without the correct "viewer". You also provide the legally
    >required accessible versions of your content, where possible.


    For my example above - if you render whole pages of text as graphics
    then you make the page too large for many users, you also hit an
    accessibility problem. If you add an alt text then users who see the
    alt text and not the graphic will get the wrong font and hence the
    wrong message. If you omit the alt text then those users get a blank
    page. If you say "Passage from Mein Kampf shown in a comedy font" then
    you rather spoli the joke. So how can these people get the message?
    How is it possible?

    >> If the look and feel is the message then how do I communicate that
    >> message if I can not use the look and feel?

    >
    >You misunderstood :)


    Then you didn't explain it well enough. You said that "the look and
    feel may BE the message". Not part of the message, not and enhancement
    to the message. But the message itself. So what did you really mean?

    >> I agree that there are cases where a particulat font may be needed (a
    >> typography tutorial may need to explain differences between fonts
    >> showing particular fonts) and in that case an image is the best option
    >> but by it's very nature the information in that image can not be fully
    >> communicated via an alt attribute. So the subset of the WWW that can
    >> not see the image can not get the message.

    >
    >Yes. Because you dont design for everyone. Like any form of media, you
    >design for a particular audience.


    Again, show me the correlation between demographics and technology.
    Show me the correlation between liking a certain band and having or
    having a certain disability. Where are the studies that allow you to
    know what your target audience can or can not see on the WWW?

    >>>I was just annoyed by a bunch of people in
    >>>here who think standards, accessibility etc etc are more important that
    >>>actually providing something INTERESTING.

    >>
    >> Name one person who has ever said that? Give us references to some
    >> posts? Everyone here (well excepting Richard of course) is into
    >> providing interesting content. Those with some design talent will also
    >> be able to present that content in an interesting way.

    >
    >Just read over the posts. See what the subjects are. It's all technical,


    This is a technical newsgroup. There are design orientated newgroups.
    You may be better off discussing design issues in those. (Though IIRC
    you first arrived here during a cross posted thread from one of those
    groups.)

    >> I'm not a designer (look at http://www.stevepugh.net/VTT/ for my
    >> latest personal site), I don't speak on design issues, but every day
    >> in my working life I advise designers on what is and is not possible
    >> and practical on the WWW. And that's what I'm doing in this thread -
    >> if your message needs a particular font then the message can not reach
    >> the whole WWW. That's a fact of the medium.

    >
    >Which is wrong. Because there are ways of delivery a font to a client,
    >so long as they have a visual way of displaying content (ah, gotta have
    >your accessibility caveat :))


    How do I deliver a font to a lynx user? Or to a non-IE user with
    images and plugins turned off because their on the end of a shitty
    connection?

    >>>Of course. But art and design are part of EVERYTHING. Especially the
    >>>latter. Without DESIGN you might as well not even start.

    >>
    >> If a designer tells me that a site _must_ use a particular font then I
    >> will conclude that said designer either doesn't understand the WWW as
    >> a medium or that they have pretensions of art. They can suggest a font
    >> and depending on a number of factors that font may or may not be seen
    >> by some percentage of visitors.

    >
    >You'd be wrong then. Sometimes "font X" is EXACTLY what is required
    >because it's part of brand or image.


    It can not be requiered if the brand is to work on the WWW because
    some portionn of the WWW will not, can not, see the font.

    > You must find a way to achieve that without making your site unsable.


    It can not be achaieved. Only some percentage.

    >A good designer will know that "fond
    >X" cannot be used for everything on the site, so wouldn't ask for it in
    >the first place.


    Exactly my point. Good WWW designers know that a font will never be
    seen by everyone and hence can not be relied upon.

    > However were it IS required, you should provide it.


    It will be provided. I gave techniques to provoide it. I know that
    none of those techniques reaches 100% of the audience (target or
    otherwise) and that each of those techniques comes with other
    disadvantages. You seem deluded into thinking that you can reach all
    your audience but you haven't told us how you would do so.

    >It is terribly short sighted to suggest WWW cannot be aristic, which
    >seems to be the jist of your comment.


    Of course the WWW can be artistic. Web sites can exist as works of art
    in their own right, in which case the normal rules of design don't
    need to apply (some art works by ignoring the normal limits of a
    medium, some art benefits by working within the medium). Art can also
    be incorporated into more normal web sites and there part of the
    designers job is to incorporate the art into the medium.

    >To me, it seems that you dont have
    >a clue about interacting with people on an emotional level.


    Oddly enough, I did a test on the BBC web site today which said quite
    the opposite.

    > Art/Design are one and the same thing.


    No they're not. They draw on some of the same skills and they can
    inform each other but ultimately they have very different goals.
    Confusing the two leads to poor design and poor art.

    >HOW design is more important that the content.


    Never.

    >If you get the design wrong, you may as well have the
    >no content.


    That is true. But good design can never make up for lack of content.
    Content is always more important.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
    Steve Pugh, Feb 28, 2005
    #13
  14. Zrinko

    Zrinko Guest

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:35:53 +0100, Zrinko wrote:

    <cut>

    ok, thanks to you all.
    even though I agree with SpaceGirl, I also agree with Steve. I will be the
    first who will leave the website if it takes a lot to download. I just
    wanted to know if there is a way of avoiding doing images to publish a
    certain font. cause certain font has it's feeling and mood which for the
    thing I'm doing is mandatory. it is nothing cheesy or big or
    pluck-you-in-the-eye thing, it's just a small, cute little font which is
    very special and fits the whole website perfectly.
    Zrinko, Mar 1, 2005
    #14
  15. Zrinko

    Zrinko Guest

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:40:13 -0500, Carolyn Marenger wrote:

    >Those like myself - I won't download a font to see a
    > site, I'll leave the site first.


    yeah, me too :)
    Zrinko, Mar 1, 2005
    #15
  16. Toby Inkster wrote:

    > SpaceGirl wrote:


    >> For crying outloud, everyone is turning into short-sighed web
    >> programmers who think validating HTML = the best side ever design, and
    >> that anything vaguelly wiffing of "design" is bad.


    > And the inverse would be better?


    I'm still trying to figure out what "wiffing" is. I have some ex-wivs;
    maybe a wif is the singular of wivs. :)

    --
    Blinky T. "but all I get is a whiff of a misspelling" Shark
    Blinky the Shark, Mar 1, 2005
    #16
  17. Zrinko

    Steve Pugh Guest

    Steve Pugh <> wrote:

    >Let's say someone wanted to put text from Mein Kampf (is that a
    >Godwin? I think it's a fair example here) online displayed in a comedy
    >font.


    Upon reflection I can think of better, less offensive, examples so it
    probably should be a Godwin. Time to kill this thread.

    Steve

    --
    "Reality must take precedence over public relations.
    Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
    Steve Pugh, Mar 1, 2005
    #17
  18. Zrinko

    Els Guest

    Blinky the Shark wrote:

    > Toby Inkster wrote:
    >
    >> SpaceGirl wrote:

    >
    >>> For crying outloud, everyone is turning into short-sighed
    >>> web programmers who think validating HTML = the best side
    >>> ever design, and that anything vaguelly wiffing of
    >>> "design" is bad.

    >
    >> And the inverse would be better?

    >
    > I'm still trying to figure out what "wiffing" is. I have
    > some ex-wivs; maybe a wif is the singular of wivs. :)


    A wiff is a whiff :)

    --
    Els
    http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Els, Mar 1, 2005
    #18
  19. Zrinko

    Steve Pugh Guest

    Zrinko <> wrote:
    >On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:35:53 +0100, Zrinko wrote:
    >
    ><cut>
    >
    >ok, thanks to you all.
    >even though I agree with SpaceGirl, I also agree with Steve.


    I wouldn't expect anything else. We're only disagreeing over very
    minor details and philosophical semantics.

    > I will be the
    >first who will leave the website if it takes a lot to download. I just
    >wanted to know if there is a way of avoiding doing images to publish a
    >certain font. cause certain font has it's feeling and mood which for the
    >thing I'm doing is mandatory. it is nothing cheesy or big or
    >pluck-you-in-the-eye thing, it's just a small, cute little font which is
    >very special and fits the whole website perfectly.


    You have two main options:

    1. Headings in the chosen font, body copy in a standard font. This is
    the option used by most web sites (that care about fonts at all).
    Create the headings as graphics and leave the body copy as a generic
    serif or sans-serif. If you're creating a lot of headings on an
    ongoing basis (e.g. if you're adding articles daily and needing to
    make a graphic for each) then there are variations you can try
    (generating the graphics dynamically on the server; using Flash and
    DOM scripting to dynamically create headers on the server).

    2. Everything in the chosen font. If avoiding big downloads is your
    goal then the best option here is WEFT. But this will only reach a
    portion of IE users. So it will have a bigger impact than the headings
    only approach but on a smaller audience.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
    Steve Pugh, Mar 1, 2005
    #19
  20. Els wrote:
    > Blinky the Shark wrote:


    >> Toby Inkster wrote:


    >>> SpaceGirl wrote:


    >>>> For crying outloud, everyone is turning into short-sighed
    >>>> web programmers who think validating HTML = the best side
    >>>> ever design, and that anything vaguelly wiffing of
    >>>> "design" is bad.


    >>> And the inverse would be better?


    >> I'm still trying to figure out what "wiffing" is. I have
    >> some ex-wivs; maybe a wif is the singular of wivs. :)


    > A wiff is a whiff :)


    Go back and look at my sig, Els. :)

    --
    Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
    Who has implemented Usenet Solution #45933:
    Now killing all posts originating at Google Groups
    Blinky the Shark, Mar 1, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Karl Hungus

    Font class, external font files question

    Karl Hungus, Feb 4, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    513
    Karl Hungus
    Feb 4, 2004
  2. =?Utf-8?B?Tmlja3k=?=
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    692
    Matt Berther
    Feb 20, 2005
  3. Lucky Dog
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    12,554
    EightNineThree
    Oct 3, 2003
  4. mttc
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,367
    Roedy Green
    Jul 3, 2009
  5. T. F.

    Force font download

    T. F., Aug 20, 2003, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    208
    kaeli
    Aug 20, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page