ensuring a font is used...

[jake]

Because you're easily impressed.


Did you ever wonder if anyone *wants* to download that crap (your pet
obscure font)?

.......... all part of the design process -- aimed at enhancing your
viewing pleasure?

(Just a thought.)

regards,

 

[Morgan]

Wow, talk about bones of contention! I had better steer clear of such
dangerous topics
I was almost sure that weft worked with navigator and firefox, had
better go and check again.
Even if it is less crossbrowser than I thought, I would still say it
has merits, especially on an intranet or a IE specific audience.
On the other hand if I stay any longer my head will likely get bitten
off!
Chow dudes.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

Morgan wrote:

[apparently about WEFT specifically - at any rate about the general topic
of incrementally downloaded fonts in web pages]

No, it doesn't work with Opera either, and that's even using the latest
version. I also tried it with Mozilla Firefox, no dice there either.

And it sure isn't going to work with w3m, emacs-w3, lynx. Nor google nor
any other search engines, either.

I wouldn't exactly say that "it works for every browser", then.

The worst part being that when it doesn't work, the reader gets no kind
of clear indication that it isn't working. Likely as not they just get
the wrong display. Which could be terribly misleading, if the web page
was relying on it, rather than just using it for optional decoration.

It only works with Internet Explorer.

Hence the triumphant claim on MS's web page that:

| This technology is changing the look of the Web, by empowering site
| designers to ensure their pages appear as they want them to.

Compatibility with W3C, anyone?

The original idea of the web, I thought, was to have the content presented
to the user in a way that was appropriate to each user's presentation
situation and needs. If "designers" wanted to ensure their exact
presentation, then surely they'd be better advised to use PDF, or MS-Word
or something - and leave HTML/CSS in peace?

Well, I wouldn't say that MS's claim was true in Feb.2001 when they put
their copyright on that page, and I see no evidence that it's true now.

Pity they hadn't concentrated their effort on support for SVG: I think
that would have had better prospects for success. And with a design which
had considered the options for fallback when the intended presentation
wasn't feasible.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

We have been through this nonsense before, haven't we?

The number and quality of the examples you presented was very informative.
Thank you for making my point so clear.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Domestos quothed:

You know, we all slag Micro$oft of at one time or another, but when they
provide FREE tools like this, I often think why we do it... thanks for the
links...

Yeah, they're wonderful. However, if MS had made a decent browser to
begin with, 90% of those "tools" wouldn't be needed.

 

[jake]

Morgan wrote:

[apparently about WEFT specifically - at any rate about the general topic
of incrementally downloaded fonts in web pages]

No, it doesn't work with Opera either, and that's even using the latest
version. I also tried it with Mozilla Firefox, no dice there either.

And it sure isn't going to work with w3m, emacs-w3, lynx. Nor google nor
any other search engines, either.

Maybe it's just as well that it will work for the 90% of the Web
population using IE ;-)

The worst part being that when it doesn't work, the reader gets no kind
of clear indication that it isn't working. Likely as not they just get
the wrong display.

Which could be terribly misleading, if the web page
was relying on it, rather than just using it for optional decoration.

The browser will simply fall back on the default font(s) if it doesn't
support font embedding. So I'm not quite sure I see a problem here.

It's just presenting text in a preferred font; not much different to
specifying Verdana for those systems that don't have Verdana installed.

A win-win situation?

[snip]

regards.

 

[jake]

The number and quality of the examples you presented was very informative.
Thank you for making my point so clear.

Not a problem. Feel free to keep making wild claims (without any proof,
of course).

"...The reason is that if you try to use WEFT for anything real, you get
into a hopeless mess..."

regards.

 

[jake]

Wow, talk about bones of contention! I had better steer clear of such
dangerous topics
I was almost sure that weft worked with navigator and firefox, had
better go and check again.
Even if it is less crossbrowser than I thought, I would still say it
has merits, especially on an intranet or a IE specific audience.
On the other hand if I stay any longer my head will likely get bitten
off!
Chow dudes.

Don't be a stranger. We can use a few visionaries in this group ;-)

regards

 

[Morgan]

Still arobe support SVG, and microsofts always slow on the uptake with
crossbrowser technology anyway. Having a dynamic SVG would be very
cool, could lay the ground for serious graphic interfaces instead of
decorations in the way flash is mostly used.

 

[Hywel Jenkins]

In message <[email protected]>,


Don't be a stranger. We can use a few visionaries in this group ;-)

When you find one let us know.

 

[SpaceGirl]

Still arobe support SVG, and microsofts always slow on the uptake with
crossbrowser technology anyway. Having a dynamic SVG would be very
cool, could lay the ground for serious graphic interfaces instead of
decorations in the way flash is mostly used.

SVG is *horrible* though. The files are huge. I for one believe SVG is
dead anyway;

1. Next year sees Windows Vista (Windows 6.0) which includes something
called Metro. It's a light-weight XML engine that descibeds UIs as well
as document distribution, and it being touted by MS as a replacement for
Flash and PDF.

2. Macromedia have been eaten by Adobe, so Adobe now owns the Flash
format. Flash is far more compact and can do a lot more. A fairly simple
SVG image could be over 100kb. An entire interactive Flash site with
animation and audio can be done in less than 50kb. I dont see Adobe
being interested in maintaining SVG for much longer.


--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

Maybe it's just as well that it will work for the 90% of the Web population
using IE ;-)

I don't know where you got your figures from, but the proportion of people
who regard MSIE as a web browser seems to be falling. (I might add that
MSIE deliberately flouts several mandatory requirements of the
interworking specifications and thereby disqualifies itself as a web
browser in the technical sense, but here we're probably discussing user
beliefs rather than theoretical principles.)

The browser will simply fall back on the default font(s) if it doesn't support
font embedding. So I'm not quite sure I see a problem here.

The problem is when authors use the technique to present some custom
glyph, rather than merely a cosmetic variation. I'm sorry if I hadn't
made that distinction clear.

It's just presenting text in a preferred font;

If that's all that it does, and regular fonts are likely to cover the
needed character repertoire too, then you're OK, and my concerns are
ill-founded, indeed. I'm sorry if you felt we were arguing at cross-
purposes.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Not a problem. Feel free to keep making wild claims (without any
proof, of course).

You _have_ made my point clear; no need to continue. Your, and anyone
else's, continued failure to present a single example of your own
is shouting proof of my point. You just read about WEFT somewhere and think
you spread the gospel, without having even tried it for anything real that
you could present as an example.

But if you insist, please post yet another babbling response without giving
any example of actual use of WEFT.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Maybe it's just as well that it will work for the 90% of the Web
population using IE ;-)

For an annoyingly small set of fonts too.

I've never got anywhere with WEFT. As Jukka says, you can make a demo
with it, but when you try to do any real work with it, you're into a
hopeless mess. For instance, has anyone made it work with a Mac?

Only working for IE isn't a problem. For the sort of pointy-haired
web-clueless managers who demand this sort of font control, they
probably think there's only one browser anyway.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, jake quothed:

Don't be a stranger. We can use a few visionaries in this group ;-)

But History has shown that strangers are invariably less of a pain in
the ass than visionaries.

 

[Toby Inkster]

SVG is *horrible* though. The files are huge.

Bah! SVG is a *tiny* format for graphics. Vectory graphics anyway. At
work, a low-res version of our logo is 18KB in JPEG, but 8.5KB as SVG.
Less than 5KB in SVGZ.

1. Next year sees Windows Vista (Windows 6.0) which includes something
called Metro. It's a light-weight XML engine that descibeds UIs as well
as document distribution, and it being touted by MS as a replacement for
Flash and PDF.

Given the number of people still using Windows 2000/Me/98/95/NT (trust me,
there are plenty -- especially in the enterprise world), how long will it
take before XAML becomes widely used (if ever)?

2. Macromedia have been eaten by Adobe, so Adobe now owns the Flash
format.

Which doesn't necessarily have much impact on SVG. Although SVG was
pioneered by Adobe, it is a web standard now, with a life of its own. Even
if Adobe were to disappear tomorrow, there are a raft of image editors,
viewers and browsers with built-in SVG support.

 

[jake]

I don't know where you got your figures from, but the proportion of people
who regard MSIE as a web browser seems to be falling.

There's various figures bandied around on the Web, but most of these
seem to run in the range upwards of 85%.

Although no longer in the 'Web business' myself, I do contribute the
occasional page to a local organisation and like to monitor the visitor
statistics.

According to the stats, something like 98% of the (random) visitors to
the site use some release of IE. Assuming that some of the stats reflect
other browsers masquerading as IE, I suspect that '90% of genuine IE
users' is not an exaggerated figure.

(I might add that
MSIE deliberately flouts several mandatory requirements of the
interworking specifications and thereby disqualifies itself as a web
browser in the technical sense, but here we're probably discussing user
beliefs rather than theoretical principles.)

Quite so.

The problem is when authors use the technique to present some custom
glyph, rather than merely a cosmetic variation. I'm sorry if I hadn't
made that distinction clear.

That's fine. I take your point.

If that's all that it does, and regular fonts are likely to cover the
needed character repertoire too, then you're OK, and my concerns are
ill-founded, indeed. I'm sorry if you felt we were arguing at cross-
purposes.

regards.

 

[jake]

For an annoyingly small set of fonts too.

Interesting. Would you like to explain that one?

I've never got anywhere with WEFT.

Hmmm. Can't really comment about your personal problems unless you want
to say what they were.

As Jukka says, you can make a demo
with it, but when you try to do any real work with it, you're into a
hopeless mess.

A rather silly comment. As Jukka seems reluctant to gives specific
reasons for this 'hopeless mess', perhaps you would like to do so?

For instance, has anyone made it work with a Mac?

No idea. What does the specification say?

Only working for IE isn't a problem.

Glad to hear it.

For the sort of pointy-haired
web-clueless managers who demand this sort of font control, they
probably think there's only one browser anyway.

9 out of 10 people can't be wrong ;-)

Think of font-embedding as just another weapon in the designer's
armoury.

You want to use it? It's there.

You don't want to use it? That's fine, too.

regards.

 

[Andy Dingley]

According to the stats, something like 98% of the (random) visitors to
the site use some release of IE.

Then your stats are wrong. Browsers (chiefly Opera) faking themselves to
report as IE are very common.

More than 2% of my users aren't even using Windows and even IE/Mac
(which is very unpopular) is sufficiently different from IE/PC to be
regarded as a different browser for authoring test purposes.

 

[jake]

You missed out this bit:

"... Assuming that some of the stats reflect other browsers masquerading
as IE, I suspect that '90% of genuine IE users' is not an exaggerated
figure..."

Then your stats are wrong.

And you know this ......... because?

Browsers (chiefly Opera) faking themselves to
report as IE are very common.

Didn't I just say that? (hint: it's in the bit you left out.)

More than 2% of my users aren't even using Windows and even IE/Mac
(which is very unpopular) is sufficiently different from IE/PC to be
regarded as a different browser for authoring test purposes.

Like I said, "... I suspect that '90% of genuine IE users' is not an
exaggerated figure..."

YMMV.

regards.