using non-system fonts in pages

[C A Upsdell]

Hi,

Is it possible to use a non-system font in a web page, and have it seen by
visitors? I'd like to use a typewriter-like font for some text, so if
someone who doesn't have that font reads it, will it just be in their
default font? How can I make the visitor display the typewriter font instead
of the default? Obviously I can see the alternative font because I have
installed it. I just wonder whether anyone else can?

Use CSS like:

font-family:"Courier New", Courier, monospace;

if you have another preferred font, put its name at the front of the list.

 

[Sam Hughes]

Use CSS like:

font-family:"Courier New", Courier, monospace;

if you have another preferred font, put its name at the front of the
list.

Explanation: In CSS, monospace is not a font name itself; it refers to
the browser's default monospace font. So if the browser understands this
CSS (which nearly all browsers do, counting by percentage of users),
_some_ type of monospaced font will be rendered.

 

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

So, for instance, if I use CSS and include "font-family:"Typewriter" ,
would you be able to see the text using this font if you don't actually have
the font on your system?

No.


Matthias

 

[John McGaw]

Thanks, guys. What I'm getting at is, I downloaded a typewriter-like font
(so it's not actually a Windows-included font), so *I* have the font, but my
visitors don't. So when I load the page, *I* can see the typewriter font,
but can someone else who *doesn't* have the font see it, or does it just
revert to their default?

So, for instance, if I use CSS and include "font-family:"Typewriter" ,
would you be able to see the text using this font if you don't actually have
the font on your system?

Explanation: In CSS, monospace is not a font name itself; it refers to
the browser's default monospace font. So if the browser understands this
CSS (which nearly all browsers do, counting by percentage of users),
_some_ type of monospaced font will be rendered.

If you want to be ABSOLUTELY (well relatively absolutely) sure that the
viewers can see exactly what you intend no matter what fonts are installed
on their system then you will probably have to create the text as an image
and insert that. There seem to have been some attempts at embedding fonts
into pages but it was never well supported and now looks like a dead issue.
Of course there is still the problem of text-only browsers which won't see
any of it no matter what you do...

 

[mentalguy2004]

Hi,

Is it possible to use a non-system font in a web page, and have it seen by
visitors? I'd like to use a typewriter-like font for some text, so if
someone who doesn't have that font reads it, will it just be in their
default font? How can I make the visitor display the typewriter font instead
of the default? Obviously I can see the alternative font because I have
installed it. I just wonder whether anyone else can?

thanks.

 

[Sam Hughes]

If you want to be ABSOLUTELY (well relatively absolutely) sure that
the viewers can see exactly what you intend no matter what fonts are
installed on their system then you will probably have to create the
text as an image and insert that. There seem to have been some
attempts at embedding fonts into pages but it was never well supported
and now looks like a dead issue. Of course there is still the problem
of text-only browsers which won't see any of it no matter what you
do...

Oh and bandwidth. And resizing.

 

[Neal]

OK, thanks a lot everyone, for your quick and helpful answers. I needed
to
use the font on a page with updating text, so using jpg's isn't really an
option except for the static stuff. Courier it is then!

thanks again, much appreciated.

Be sure you ask for something like {font-family:"Courier New", Courier,
monospace;} or the browser won't know to replace it with a monospace if
the font isn't present...

 

[Sam Hughes]

OK, thanks a lot everyone, for your quick and helpful answers. I
needed to use the font on a page with updating text, so using jpg's
isn't really an option except for the static stuff. Courier it is
then!

No, don't use jpg's for the static stuff either. Images should be images,
links should be links, and text should be text.

Using images of text is basically a terrible thing.

 

[mentalguy2004]

Thanks, guys. What I'm getting at is, I downloaded a typewriter-like font
(so it's not actually a Windows-included font), so *I* have the font, but my
visitors don't. So when I load the page, *I* can see the typewriter font,
but can someone else who *doesn't* have the font see it, or does it just
revert to their default?

So, for instance, if I use CSS and include "font-family:"Typewriter" ,
would you be able to see the text using this font if you don't actually have
the font on your system?

 

[mentalguy2004]

OK, thanks a lot everyone, for your quick and helpful answers. I needed to
use the font on a page with updating text, so using jpg's isn't really an
option except for the static stuff. Courier it is then!

thanks again, much appreciated.

 

[jake]

Thanks, guys. What I'm getting at is, I downloaded a typewriter-like font
(so it's not actually a Windows-included font), so *I* have the font, but my
visitors don't. So when I load the page, *I* can see the typewriter font,
but can someone else who *doesn't* have the font see it, or does it just
revert to their default?

So, for instance, if I use CSS and include "font-family:"Typewriter" ,
would you be able to see the text using this font if you don't actually have
the font on your system?

Yes -- if you 'embed' the font.

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/web/embedding/weft3/default.htm

It will only work with Internet Explorer -- but then again that's 95% of
your visitors. Other visitors see whatever else you've suggested -- or
their own preferred font.

regards.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Yes -- if you 'embed' the font.

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/web/embedding/weft3/default.htm

Every now and then the WEFT technology is suggested in alt.html and other
groups, regularly without a reference to the recommender's own site that
deploys it. This is no wonder, since the technology is confusing and
error-prone - you might manage to make some trivial tests work, but using
WEFT for a living, real-life site doesn't seem to be popular.

It will only work with Internet Explorer -- but then again that's 95%
of your visitors.

And then again, 98.8% of all percentages have just been made up.

If WEFT ever became widespread, IE users would probably learn how to
change the browser settings to disallow dynamic fonts. (Why? Well, people
who insist on enforcing their fonts on visitors seem to fight for fonts
that are particularly poor choices, often extravagant and barely
legible.)

 

[jake]

Every now and then the WEFT technology is suggested in alt.html and other
groups, regularly without a reference to the recommender's own site that
deploys it. This is no wonder, since the technology is confusing and
error-prone - you might manage to make some trivial tests work, but using
WEFT for a living, real-life site doesn't seem to be popular.

Sadly, you seem to speak as someone with no experience of the subject.

The technology is not 'confusing and error-prone' -- please give me an
example, from your experience, supporting this argument.

"... you might manage to make some trivial tests work .."; this is a
really silly comment and suggests to me that you haven't used it.

The use of the technology is simple and straight-forward:

(a) Tell WEFT where your page(s) is.
(b) Tell it which fonts you wish to embed.
(c) Tell it whether you want to generate a subset or the full font.
(d) Generate it the 'embedded font'. I.e. produce an .eot file.
(e) Upload the .eot file to your server
(f) Include the font in the appropriate 'font-family' in your CSS.

Now. What's so 'confusing' about that?

And then again, 98.8% of all percentages have just been made up.

Let's see. Looking at the stats for a colleague's Web site I see:
IE (6/5.5/5.01/4.5) ...... 97%
Mozilla, Safari, Firefox ...... 1% each

Based on what other posters have been quoting in the NG and others, I
doubt that 95% is too exaggerated a claim.

If WEFT ever became widespread, IE users would probably learn how to
change the browser settings to disallow dynamic fonts. (Why? Well, people
who insist on enforcing their fonts on visitors seem to fight for fonts
that are particularly poor choices, often extravagant and barely
legible.)

A very silly argument, if I may say so. That's no different to saying
that 'if this graphics-in-place-of-text business ever catches on, then
IE users will be leaning to turn off image down-loading ...... etc.
etc. etc. (just substitute the above words).

Win or lose -- it's down to the Web page designer to decide what fonts
s/he will suggest to the user.

Don't forget. IE users always have the luxury of overriding the author's
choice of font if they really want to.

WEFT is an excellent method for allowing a designer to let his/her
audience see their page as *they* envisaged it without resorting to
graphics for special fonts and allowing the user to vary the size of the
font according to their needs: a big 'accessibility' plus.

regards.

 

[Frogleg]

Is it possible to use a non-system font in a web page, and have it seen by
visitors? I'd like to use a typewriter-like font for some text, so if
someone who doesn't have that font reads it, will it just be in their
default font? How can I make the visitor display the typewriter font instead
of the default? Obviously I can see the alternative font because I have
installed it. I just wonder whether anyone else can?

Short answer is no. You can 'embed' the font with your page
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Download_fonts
but this isn't recommended. Next closest is, as already posted, is
using 'font-family' with your typewriter font name first, and Courier
and others after. Who knows -- you might hit users who *have* a
Typewriter font installed!

The remaining solution is to turn your text into graphics, which is
very annoying to those who'd prefer larger or smaller text sizes.

Judging by the alarming number of fonts that came with my latest OS
(XP Home), in 5 years, every new machine will have 5,000 fonts
installed and the problem will be solved for all.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Sadly, you seem to speak as someone with no experience of the
subject.

You yourself have not given any evidence of _your_ experience with any
Web authoring or other use of HTML. Quite expectedly, you don't present
any demonstration of actual WEFT usage of yours - confirming my previous
note.

Now. What's so 'confusing' about that?

Try it in real life and then start struggling with bugs in the software
that is purported to do the job for you.

Let's see. Looking at the stats for a colleague's Web site I see:

Yes. That's what I said. Your eagerness to quote an unnamed pal's
purported statistics as evidence for your global claim is undescribably
ridiculous, just as 97.7% of all percentage fans' babbling.

 

[Dylan Parry]

Let's see. Looking at the stats for a colleague's Web site I see:
IE (6/5.5/5.01/4.5) ...... 97%
Mozilla, Safari, Firefox ...... 1% each

My stats show only 60% of visitors are using IE. That's the thing with
stats; they vary significantly from site to site and are often wrong
anyway.

Based on what other posters have been quoting in the NG and others, I
doubt that 95% is too exaggerated a claim.

It is. You cannot possibly know the %age of IE users that are visiting a
site before it has been deployed (ie. the OP's site) and even then they
will probably be incorrect of misleading.

 

[jake]

WEFT is a bag of nails.

Not a term I'm familiar with ;-)

It might possibly work,

As in 'it does work' .......

but it has an ugly
and misbegotten interface, even by M$oft's standards. There's simply
no need for that database (it's all implicit in the CSS), let alone
the clunky way to manage it.

It could be better ........ but it does it's job.

Do you have an example of WEFT code or EOT files up and working on the
public web ?
http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/fonttest.htm

[OT] BTW - Do you know Kim Siddorn ?

No, sorry. What makes you think I should? (Just interested.)

 

[jake]

You yourself have not given any evidence of _your_ experience with any
Web authoring or other use of HTML. Quite expectedly, you don't present
any demonstration of actual WEFT usage of yours - confirming my previous
note.

Ah. The old "attack is the best form of defence" approach.

Sure. Here's an example I've published in this and other NGs as an
example, showing you don't have to be a rocket scientist to use it.

http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/fonttest.htm

Now. Maybe *you* could post an example that *you've* produced, and then
tell me about the problems that *you* had in getting that far? Fair?

Try it in real life and then start struggling with bugs in the software
that is purported to do the job for you.


Yes. That's what I said. Your eagerness to quote an unnamed pal's
purported statistics as evidence for your global claim is undescribably
ridiculous, just as 97.7% of all percentage fans' babbling.

A rather silly argument. Obviously the values will change from
moment-to-moment -- but there's certainly enough statistics floating
around the Web that indicate overwhelming domination of the browser
market by Internet Explorer (or are you going to argue that there's no
truth in that?).

As I said to the OP "...Other visitors see whatever else you've
suggested -- or their own preferred font ...".

regards.

 

[Toby Inkster]

Let's see. Looking at the stats for a colleague's Web site I see:
IE (6/5.5/5.01/4.5) ...... 97%

And on mine IE accounts for only 57%.

But how many of those IEs floating about support WEFT? That's anyone's
guess.

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&output=gplain

 

[Andy Dingley]

http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/fonttest.htm

Works under IE, fails under Firefox. (Windows)
Fails with IE6 on the iMac.

[OT] BTW - Do you know Kim Siddorn ?

No, sorry. What makes you think I should? (Just interested.)

Well look out for a large hairy chap from the South West, fond of
setting off a-viking to Kent. He's building some soft of long house
over there.