J
D
Daniel R. Tobias
jake said:
For a definition of "works" that excludes, for instance, people like me
who use the Mozilla browser.
D
dorayme
snip
if you *must* have a particular (unlikely) font, just use pictures of it and
be done ... till you have time to write simple html and css without
dreamweaver.
It isn't a crime and if you make small gifs it will work
fine...
dorayme
if you *must* have a particular (unlikely) font, just use pictures of it and
be done ... till you have time to write simple html and css without
dreamweaver.
It isn't a crime and if you make small gifs it will workfine...
dorayme
J
jake
Works fine in MSIE (as the thread indicated).Daniel R. Tobias said:
MSIE users get to see the author's suggested font; the 10% (or less) who
aren't IE users get to see the author's suggested alternative font -- or
their own.
regards.
S
SpaceGirl
jake said:
And with FireFox gaining users rapidly, this would suggest you just dont
user the technology. There are two other issues which you failed to
mention: 1) Fonts are licensed, so unless you paid for a distribution
license, you're breaching copyright by embedding typefaces. 2) Fonts are
big files. They could easily be larger than your page itself to download.
So, if you dont mind paying licenses to distribute and embed fonts, you
dont mind slowing your page down, and you dont mind 10-15% of people
just not seeing your font anyway, then fine. Go for it.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
T
Toby Inkster
jake said:
Caveat: but only if the user installs the "Internet Explorer Browsing
Enhancements" component, which is an *optional* part of Internet Explorer,
and is not installed as part of the IE6SETUP minimal installation (but is
included in the "typical" installation and "full" installation, and may or
may not be included in a "custom" installation)
S
Steve Pugh
[WEFT]
Like any font - if your message depends on your font you're screwed;
if it's just a cosmetic extra then no big deal.
Using WEFT to embed a font is _not_ distributing it. The user at the
other end can not take them and reuse them for personal projects
(though I suppose they could take them and use them in their own web
pages if they wanted to). Further, fonts can contain a "no embedding"
permission that prevents WEFT from using them.
The files I've created with WEFT have been 7kb - smaller than using
graphics for the headers on every page of even a small site.
If you have a very big font (say one that contains the whole of
unicode) then you can tell WEFT to only embed those characters that
are used on the web page (don't forget to update the WEFT file if you
change the content!) which reduces the file size accordingly.
That's about it, except for the distribution license and slowing pages
down parts.
WEFT is comparable to sIFR in that it will work for a lot of users but
not all; involves a small additional download; is scalable and
accessible.
WEFT wins out over sIFR in that the software to generate the files is
free and doesn't need any extra installation by the user but loses out
in that it's only supported by Win IE rather than by any browser with
good DOM support, Flash installed and enabled and JavaScript enabled.
Both WEFT and sIFR win out over using images or image replacement CSS
techniques in that they are smaller downloads, scalable and easier to
update.
Steve
Like any font - if your message depends on your font you're screwed;
if it's just a cosmetic extra then no big deal.
Using WEFT to embed a font is _not_ distributing it. The user at the
other end can not take them and reuse them for personal projects
(though I suppose they could take them and use them in their own web
pages if they wanted to). Further, fonts can contain a "no embedding"
permission that prevents WEFT from using them.
The files I've created with WEFT have been 7kb - smaller than using
graphics for the headers on every page of even a small site.
If you have a very big font (say one that contains the whole of
unicode) then you can tell WEFT to only embed those characters that
are used on the web page (don't forget to update the WEFT file if you
change the content!) which reduces the file size accordingly.
That's about it, except for the distribution license and slowing pages
down parts.
WEFT is comparable to sIFR in that it will work for a lot of users but
not all; involves a small additional download; is scalable and
accessible.
WEFT wins out over sIFR in that the software to generate the files is
free and doesn't need any extra installation by the user but loses out
in that it's only supported by Win IE rather than by any browser with
good DOM support, Flash installed and enabled and JavaScript enabled.
Both WEFT and sIFR win out over using images or image replacement CSS
techniques in that they are smaller downloads, scalable and easier to
update.
Steve
S
Steve Pugh
Steve Pugh said:
And WEFT can be used for whole pages of text whereas sIFR really bogs
down if used for more than just the headings.
Steve
J
jake
SpaceGirl said:
Not quite sure what you mean, but FireFox users are still a small
minority. Sorry.
Embedding permissions (or not) are carried in the original font file.
WEFT creates its own format down-load files (.eot files), and will
honour the permissions set in the original file.
i.e. not produce a .eot file if the required permissions are not present
in the original.
The .eot files can only be downloaded from the server they're generated
for and uploaded to.
Umm ... no.
WEFT allows the creation of subsets of the file.
e.g. A .eot file containing only the characters in a heading, or
headings -- or only those characters required on a particular page or
paragraph.
A typical heading (or headings) may require a .eot file of only 3 or 4k
bytes.
A file for the average page (assuming that you wanted your entire page
in a special font) would be, perhaps, between 14k and 30k bytes
depending on page content and characteristics of the font (upper case
only, etc.).
Only if you have a small page ;-)
Ah. The viewpoint of a 'glass-half-empty' person. See above.
As a 'glass-half-full' kind of person, I see this as a useful tool for
any designer who wants to use a special font on their page. No .gif
images to maintain, 90% or more of your visitors get to see the font,
visually-impaired folks get to increase the size of the font in the
usual way.
Still, designer's choice, I guess.
Regards.
B
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
jake said:
Depends on your definition of 'small' I suppose... 8-D
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
J
jake
So, the typical user would have to go out of their way *not* to have theToby said:
facility in their browser.
So, probably valid for 99.999%[1] of IE users?
regards
[1] Substitute any other value close to 100%.
T
Toby Inkster
jake said:
Clicking "Miminal/Custom Install" instead of "Typical Install" or "Full
Install" in the ie6setup program requires *one* extra click. Hardly what
I'd call "out of their way".
As a full install of IE 6 is almost a 60MB download, I can imagine that
a *lot* of people on slower connections would opt for the smallest install
possible.
This would also go for people with limited hard drive space (e.g. older
laptops).
And as an IT bod who has had to install IE 6 about a hundred times, I
*always* go for the minimal install -- the end user isn't going to notice,
and I've saved myself a few cumulative hours of sitting in front of
an install screen.