| 2:09 am on Feb 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You can always use WEFT (which of course, being a MS offering, only works properly on IE - don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy with MS and IE, but I'm fully aware that there are others just the opposite). If you want to take a look at WEFT, go to [microsoft.com...]
I use it occasionally. Otherwise, when it's a titling situation, I just make compressed graphics on transparent background with the appro font. If you don't use HUGE titles in MASSIVE sizes, this approach doesn't add a lot of overhead....
| 2:25 am on Feb 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
cheers for the help dude.
i jst cant be assed to make them all small pictures...
do u knw why this programe only works with IE?
| 2:31 am on Feb 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Graphics...the only sure-fire way to make it visible to everyone (well, everyone who isn't surfing with images turned off anyway!) Font embedding will eventually be developed to work in other browsers, but for now, it only works in IE. Good luck!
| 2:41 am on Feb 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
im just using the program now... but its not letting me embed my font... its got a red cross next to it and when i highlight it, the embed doesn't light up
| 3:00 am on Feb 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
ok..i jst found out the the red cross means it cant be embedded due to leagal reasons or theres an error with the file
| 4:30 am on Feb 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You cannot just take a font installed on your system, convert it to a different format, and deliver it on the Internet. Fonts are protected by copyright just like any other creative product; you'd need the permission of the creator or publisher and might need to pay royalties. This is one of the major reasons why embedded fonts were never implemented widely. They are not a W3C standard technology, and Adobe and Netscape have dropped support for their embedded fonts altogether. IE preserves them basically for backward compatibility.
Using a CSS image replacement technique is probably the way you want to go.
| 5:15 am on Feb 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
As a side note, it's interesting how casual the web is about fonts, compared to newsprint, for instance.
The Paris newspaper, Le Monde, went on for decades using their specific fonts. Then, in the early 1990's when they decided to change their look, the font designers took months - even years - to create their entries into the contest. I think the winner of the cometition was paid six figures. You can bet the newspaper plans to stick with those fonts for quite a while!
Learning a bit about the centuries old discipline of typesetting can do wonders for our web pages. What I learned about fonts doing print advertising spurred me on to learn the things CSS enables. You can do wonders with even ONE basic font.
| 8:03 am on Feb 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Theres always flash
| 1:07 pm on Feb 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
See this recent thread on fonts: [webmasterworld.com...]
| 8:56 pm on Feb 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|You can do wonders with even ONE basic font. |
What exactly do you mean? You can make it italic, bold, give it a color but uhm, wonders?
Though I must say this is a typical problem of people starting out with web design.
PS: I wouldn't mind a 'supported by all browsers' way of embedding fonts though.
Imo the copyright issue is moot as embedding already is a reality, it's just not standardized.
| 2:32 am on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Actually I'm pretty interested myself in the CSS possibilities. I'm hoping that CSS will be if not the be-all end-all of web-design at least a major stop on the way to whatever IS....
| 4:10 am on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|What exactly do you mean? You can make it italic, bold, give it a color but uhm, wonders? |
By accepting a limitation like only one font, you focus on delivering the basic content, rather than on decoration. A web page is a communication, it's information. All the frills can (and often do) get in the way.
There's a school of music called minimalism -- Glass, Reich, Riley -- that has created extreme beauty within very strict limitation. All communication is art, and it thrives in the tension between freedom and limits, not in the expression of "no limit, no rules".
So what do I mean by wonders with a single font? Well, in addition to your list, you've also got these tools: line-height, letter-spacing, margins, padding, backgrounds, sizing, alignment, and small caps. Future browsers should also support degrees of bold, bolder, boldest.
That's a lot of tools for the tool kit. If someone has trouble getting their communication across with that many tools, then an extra font or two probably won't make the difference. Many entire books are printed with one font.
| 11:08 am on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
CSS does actually allow you to specify fonts for downloading. See the @font-face [w3.org] rule.
However, as pointed out, there are nasty copyright issues and I'm not even sure if any major browsers support this rule.
| 11:27 am on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|gif and png8 are not lossless compressions |
They are definitely both lossless.
The only difference is that GIF only has a 256 color palette so it loses some colour information from hi-colour images.
"Gif format, unlike Jpeg format, use a lossless compression algorithm."
"PNG's compression is fully lossless"
What I don't understand is why IE doesn't support PNG alpha transparency. There are open source library implementations out there (such as libpng) so it wouldn't take any real work on their behalf.
And it has been an issue for a looong time now.
| 10:47 pm on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hrm. If I ever knew this I'd forgotten it long since: the "@font-face" CSS rule is pretty much exactly what WEFT does. The difference is not utilizing a middle-man (the WEFT applet) to produce "font-embedding", instead simply writing it oneself and including it in the CSS.
Which would obviate one of my main complaints about WEFT, and is the primary reason I don't use it much any more: the applet, while not "broken" per se, never seems to work exactly as one would wish, AND the eot files produced while supposedly "compressed" add an INCREDIBLE amount of overhead to page load times on dial-up (probably not on broadband, but I don't get to test on broadband - I occasionally sneak time on the T-1 at work, but it's not really a good idea *sigh*).
So here's a thought: why not simply use copyright-free or "public-domain" fonts (assuming there are some - seems like even some of the fancy stuff I use occasionally came with readme files stating they were public-domain.... I'll have to go check more carefully), loading the requisite fonts to one's own webspace?
This begs the question of browsers which don't allow or don't "see" the "@font-face" declaration, obviously. Not sure what could be done about that aside from simply detailed specification of "garden-variety" generic font families as backup....
I'm not meaning any denigration by "garden-variety" either btw - I don't use fancy fonts for much myself (the occasional title on a page which has a reason for it - like the luthier whose logo was an uncial decorative so the section titles made sense done similarly - and which I did in graphics because it was the only logical option 5 years ago....)
| 10:56 pm on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Apologies for the weird cross post above - it was intended for this thread about PNG [webmasterworld.com]