Ever since there has been design on the web it has been confined by certain restrictions. Most of these limitations have changed or relaxed over the lifetime of the web as a platform for design but one limitation clings on as maybe the last major hurdle in terms of the web designer’s creative arsenal – web fonts. But could this be about to change?
Historically, when designing for the web, the choice open to designers in terms of typeface has been somewhat restrictive and, at worse, unpredictable. The problem is two-fold; you are reliant on the end-user having the font you have chosen for your pages; but also placing your trust in the browser/operating system to render this font accurately.
This reliance on the end-users’ computers led to the creation of a sub-set of so-called web-safe fonts; a group of fonts that are common to the majority of operating systems (Windows, Mac OS and Linux). At it’s most basic it gave web designers the following choices. For sans-serif, Arial, Helvetica and several Microsoft Office typefaces such as Verdana and Tahoma. For serif we have Times and Georgia. It is, however, possible to have access to more fonts than this as you can refer to any OS specific typefaces you like, however you then run the risk of your site looking significantly different when viewed on one platform to the next. Some feel that this isn’t a bad thing, such as Andy Clarke, and in some cases it isn’t, but when it comes to a consistent brand it’s hard to argue that an unchanging typeface for all viewers is preferable.
Then along came @font-face – a CSS selector that would allow the designer to reference any font of their choosing and use it for any text on a web site. Initially the only problem that could be seen was it’s lack of support – it was only supported by Apple’s Safari browser for a long time (along with Microsoft Internet Explorer but that required the font file be converted to a proprietary format). However it is now supported by all leading browsers including Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 8. This, unfortunately, wasn’t the only hurdle for the adoption of this game-changing feature. To use @font-face you have to upload the font file to your web server to allow your pages to access it, and this is where it becomes no longer a technical issue, but a legal one. The moment you do this you are basically distributing the original font file, and are therefore breaking the license agreement with the font foundry that supplied it.
Jump to the near future and we have a neat solution in the guise of Typekit. The makers of Typekit have;
“built a technology platform that lets [them] host both free and commercial fonts in a way that is incredibly fast, smoothes out differences in how browsers handle type, and offers the level of protection that type designers need”
In a nutshell they give designers the opportunity to rent fonts directly off of their server which they have gained permission from several font foundries to host – giving us the power of embedded fonts without the legal headache.
So will this usher in a new era for typography on the web? Some might say that this level of choice will breed hideously designed web sites that use as many fonts as can possibly be squeezed in, like a bad café menu. I’m sure this may be true for a minority of sites, but I’m sure for every bad design there will be several more good ones. After all, print designers have had this massive choice of typefaces for as long as there has been desktop publishing. I guess the only reason that people may argue that this choice for the web isn’t the same as for print is that not anyone can get a brochure/document printed professionally whilst pretty much anyone can create a web site. While this may be true to a certain extent it doesn’t carry all the way through. Amateur web design is the online equivalent of the village fete flyer design or even the dodgy café menu. These things will always go on so I feel this argument of keeping web fonts limited is flawed at best. Let’s have a little faith.
Jon Tan’s web site - jontangerine.com
Even before we see typeface choice significantly permeate the web there are plenty of great examples of good typography (in terms of real text, rendered by the browser – not just bitmap imagery of type). One name that always pops into my head in this regard is Jon Tan. His web site even uses real HTML text to display his masthead/logo – impressive. Beyond that, his copy has a wonderfully sophisticated feel to it with delightful style changes for certain elements on the page. Another great example of interesting typography is Coudal Partners’ site. They actually make Times look great on the page (considering it is the default web font, and therefore probably the most avoided by designers).
Coudal Partners’ web site - coudal.com
So with this greater choice of typefaces I expect exciting things from these geniuses of online typography. It should be enough to overshadow the online equivalents of the bad café menu… hopefully.
Handy links and credits:
http://typekit.com
http://ilovetypography.com
http://www.coudal.com
http://jontangerine.com
Typekit site mockup by Jason Santa Maria
http://www.flickr.com/photos/veen/3572372312/
Your Voice
What do you think? Fill in the form below to submit any discussion points you like to raise and we'll do our best to get a debate going, in the immortal words of Bob Hoskins, it's good to talk.
Good post Matt – that’s a really interesting concept. Surely a winner for both designers, who will get more freedom to create beautiful graphics (that are searchable and accessible) and the foundries who can earn revenue from a new channel.
This looks promising. It’s also nice to see Jason Santa Maria is involved. Their web work should turn out to be top-notch.
-MP