Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Typography On the Web Gets Different

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the but-i-miss-comic-sans dept.

bstender writes "Most major browsers — including the latest versions of Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera — recognize a CSS rule known as @font-face. What that means, in brief, is that Web developers can now easily embed downloadable fonts in their pages. To see an example, load up Firefox 3.5 or Safari 4 and learn more. You'll see three new typefaces — Liza, Auto, and Dolly — used in the body text and headlines." No doubt the licensing issues are just as complex as the font nerd potential.

10 of 378 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Courier, Arial, Times New Roman by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Comic Sans" would be nice, just for a change...

    /ducks

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  2. Font control by The+name+is+Dave.+Ja · · Score: 2, Funny

    Once again, the form versus function debate ...
    Apparently, there are some out there who feel that words alone are not enough; they need a particular font to convey emotion or a particular feel.
    I just hope that any browser that supports this makes it optional, and I can turn off the downloading altogether.
    Maybe I'm just paranoid, but it sounds like it's a great candidate for some security exploits.

    1. Re:Font control by The+name+is+Dave.+Ja · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thank you for your reply.

      You are correct, of course, in an upstanding and legitimate world.

      But please consider:
      What font do you think Enron used for their Annual Reports? What about AIG?

      I know - it's not the fonts fault that it gets used. But like those examples you gave, it lends an air of credibility to whatever it portrays.

      Maybe the large bailed-out American companies should be compelled to use some sort of 5-year-old-with-Crayon font for the next 10 years.

      Bonus car analogy angle:
      A font created with a car - gives a whole new meaning to 'printer driver':
      http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/07/17/video-toyota-iq-small-car-font-jockey/

  3. Re:font of knowledge by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm a minimalist. Do what you like on your site, but IMO if you need fancy fonts your site probably sucks. like the old saying, it's the content. Like women, most pretty web sites are useless.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
  4. Re:Oh Lord! by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh come on, yellow Comic Sans on a purple background can't be that ba-ARGH! The goggles! They do nothing!

  5. Re:Oh Lord! by noundi · · Score: 2, Funny

    It was an example and as history tells us (such as the implementation of jpeg/gif) we already know things like this can be abused. What you're missing is that people essentially don't want their web pages to look shitty. They just didn't know it back then.

    --
    I am the lawn!
  6. ...and images. Don't get me started on images by kriss · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, the web went downhill back when they started embedding images in the pages. Who, I mean, who would want to see GRAPHICS in the middle of your CLEAN, SEMANTIC INFORMATION? It doesn't WORK and it's an OUTRAGE!

  7. Re:Courier, Arial, Times New Roman by zwei2stein · · Score: 2, Funny

    Once this hits mainstream, you will be *wishing* for Comic Sans when entering new site and waiting for font to load. And papyrus would be godsend which you will celebrate by writing email to webmaster and thanking him.

    --
    -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
  8. Re:The new BLINK by ZackSchil · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think I'm going to be [sic]

  9. Re:The new BLINK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The <blink> tag has one legitimate use . . .

    Shroedinger's cat is <blink>not</blink> dead.