Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Force FONT

Reply
Thread Tools

Force FONT

 
 
Zrinko
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2005
Hey!

If somebody tries to see my web page, and I'm using a font that's not the
usual type, is it posibble to somehow make the user browsing the site see
the font even though he doesn't have it installed on his computer? Any
advices or links would be useful. Thank you.

regards,
Zrinko.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
saz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2005
In article <ys49503agsow.1mzndn849f99u$(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Hey!
>
> If somebody tries to see my web page, and I'm using a font that's not the
> usual type, is it posibble to somehow make the user browsing the site see
> the font even though he doesn't have it installed on his computer? Any
> advices or links would be useful. Thank you.
>
> regards,
> Zrinko.
>

The viewer will only see the specified font if it is installed on
his/her computer, so always add a few more "safe" choices to your
stylesheet such as arial, geneva, verdana, etc. to come close to your
desired font. The only way around this is if the font is part of an
image.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Steve Pugh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2005
Zrinko <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>If somebody tries to see my web page, and I'm using a font that's not the
>usual type, is it posibble to somehow make the user browsing the site see
>the font even though he doesn't have it installed on his computer? Any
>advices or links would be useful. Thank you.


See the thread "Problem with fonts" from last week.

Summary: No you can't make your font appear for 100% of users.

Methods that may help you reach some percentage of users:
1. Use graphics (non-scalable, bandwidth intensive)
2. Use WEFT (Win IE only)
3. Use sIFR (requires Flash and JS to be enabled and good DOM support,
only suitable for small amounts of text)

If your font is more important to your message than your actual words
then the WWW is the wrong medium.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <(E-Mail Removed)> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Carolyn Marenger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2005
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:35:53 +0100, Zrinko wrote:

> Hey!
>
> If somebody tries to see my web page, and I'm using a font that's not the
> usual type, is it posibble to somehow make the user browsing the site see
> the font even though he doesn't have it installed on his computer? Any
> advices or links would be useful. Thank you.
>
> regards,
> Zrinko.


Another option is to put the font on your site and recommend users
download and install it to view the site. Check out legal issues about
ownership and distribution of the font before you do so.

Those that want to see your site as you designed it, will at least get a
step closer to it. Those like myself - I won't download a font to see a
site, I'll leave the site first.

Carolyn
 
Reply With Quote
 
SpaceGirl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2005
Steve Pugh wrote:

> If your font is more important to your message than your actual words
> then the WWW is the wrong medium.


Duh. Completely wrong. The look and feel may BE the message. There
may be no content beyond what it looks like. WWW is an entertainment
medium as well you know. Dont box yourself in just because it's trendy!


--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Pugh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2005
SpaceGirl <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Steve Pugh wrote:
>
>> If your font is more important to your message than your actual words
>> then the WWW is the wrong medium.

>
>Duh. Completely wrong.


Again?

>The look and feel may BE the message.


Then the message can not be communicated on the WWW. It can be
communicated on some subset of the WWW and the techniques I outlined
can be used to reach various of those subsets.

>There may be no content beyond what it looks like.


Then use an image. But don't expect everyone to be able to see it.
Presumably the alt attribute will be empty as users who can't see the
image can't get the content here at all?

>WWW is an entertainment medium as well you know.


Entertainme covers a lot of things.

The point here is probably the difference between art (where without
the exact font the whole sense of the piece is changed) and design
(where the limitations of the medium are understood and where a font
can be used to enhance an experience but where the underlying message
can exist without that font). Normally I assume that people posting
here are designing web sites for some purpose not producing works of
art for art's sake.

>Dont box yourself in just because it's trendy!


Oh, I'm not into _that_. Where's brucie when you need him?

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <(E-Mail Removed)> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
SpaceGirl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2005
Steve Pugh wrote:
> SpaceGirl <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Steve Pugh wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If your font is more important to your message than your actual words
>>>then the WWW is the wrong medium.

>>
>>Duh. Completely wrong.

>
>
> Again?
>
>
>>The look and feel may BE the message.

>
>
> Then the message can not be communicated on the WWW. It can be
> communicated on some subset of the WWW and the techniques I outlined
> can be used to reach various of those subsets.


LOL you what? If it is delivered via WWW (Internet, HTTP) then it is
being comminicated OVER WWW. You might as well say graphics are a subset
of the WWW given your definition There are no "subsets"! WWW is a
delivery medium. It can contain anything. Just one of those things it
contains may be HTML - or video, or graphics, or anything - all
contained with an HTML document.

>>There may be no content beyond what it looks like.

>
>
> Then use an image. But don't expect everyone to be able to see it.
> Presumably the alt attribute will be empty as users who can't see the
> image can't get the content here at all?
>


No, you take the usual steps. I was just annoyed by a bunch of people in
here who think standards, accessibility etc etc are more important that
actually providing something INTERESTING. Everyone is so ****ing
bothered about all this crap they are forgetting about THE DESIGN.
Whatever happened to innovation? For crying outloud, everyone is turning
into short-sighed web programmers who think validating HTML = the best
side ever design, and that anything vaguelly wiffing of "design" is bad.

>>WWW is an entertainment medium as well you know.

>
> Entertainme covers a lot of things.


Uh huh.

> The point here is probably the difference between art (where without
> the exact font the whole sense of the piece is changed) and design
> (where the limitations of the medium are understood and where a font
> can be used to enhance an experience but where the underlying message
> can exist without that font). Normally I assume that people posting
> here are designing web sites for some purpose not producing works of
> art for art's sake.


Of course. But art and design are part of EVERYTHING. Especially the
latter. Without DESIGN you might as well not even start.

>>Dont box yourself in just because it's trendy!

>
>
> Oh, I'm not into _that_. Where's brucie when you need him?
>
> Steve


*kissy*

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Pugh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2005
SpaceGirl <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Steve Pugh wrote:
>> SpaceGirl <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>Steve Pugh wrote:
>>>
>>>>If your font is more important to your message than your actual words
>>>>then the WWW is the wrong medium.
>>>
>>>The look and feel may BE the message.

>>
>> Then the message can not be communicated on the WWW. It can be
>> communicated on some subset of the WWW and the techniques I outlined
>> can be used to reach various of those subsets.

>
>LOL you what?


Which of my words did you have difficulty understanding?

>f it is delivered via WWW (Internet, HTTP) then it is
>being comminicated OVER WWW.


But if only a portion of the WWW can actually get the message that is
communicated by these words in this exact font then only a portion can
get the message. You're the one who claims that the look and feel may
be the message. Not an adjunct to the message, not an enhancement of
the message, not part of the message, but the actual message itself.
How do you get that message across to people who can't see your font?

>You might as well say graphics are a subset
>of the WWW given your definition


They are.

>There are no "subsets"!


Of course there are.

>WWW is a delivery medium. It can contain anything.


And not everyone on the WWW can see everything that is delivered over
it. Or hadn't you realised that yet?

>Just one of those things it
>contains may be HTML - or video, or graphics, or anything - all
>contained with an HTML document.


You don't even need the HTML.

>>>There may be no content beyond what it looks like.

>>
>> Then use an image. But don't expect everyone to be able to see it.
>> Presumably the alt attribute will be empty as users who can't see the
>> image can't get the content here at all?

>
>No, you take the usual steps.


Please elaborate?

If the look and feel is the message then how do I communicate that
message if I can not use the look and feel?

I agree that there are cases where a particulat font may be needed (a
typography tutorial may need to explain differences between fonts
showing particular fonts) and in that case an image is the best option
but by it's very nature the information in that image can not be fully
communicated via an alt attribute. So the subset of the WWW that can
not see the image can not get the message.

On the other hand if the font is an enhancement to the message (and
not the message itself) you can use any of the techniques I outlined
in my first post in this thread with the understanding that some part
of your audience will get the message in its unenhanced form.

>I was just annoyed by a bunch of people in
>here who think standards, accessibility etc etc are more important that
>actually providing something INTERESTING.


Name one person who has ever said that? Give us references to some
posts? Everyone here (well excepting Richard of course) is into
providing interesting content. Those with some design talent will also
be able to present that content in an interesting way.

I'm not a designer (look at http://www.stevepugh.net/VTT/ for my
latest personal site), I don't speak on design issues, but every day
in my working life I advise designers on what is and is not possible
and practical on the WWW. And that's what I'm doing in this thread -
if your message needs a particular font then the message can not reach
the whole WWW. That's a fact of the medium.

> Everyone is so ****ing
>bothered about all this crap they are forgetting about THE DESIGN.


As I said, part of design, indeed the key part, is understanding the
medium you are working in.

>Whatever happened to innovation?


It's alive and well.

>For crying outloud, everyone is turning
>into short-sighed web programmers who think validating HTML = the best
>side ever design, and that anything vaguelly wiffing of "design" is bad.


Again, who says that?

Validating HTML is about validating HTML, it has nothing to do with
design. There is a huge range of designs that can be built with valid,
semantically sound, accessible, usable code. A good designer listens
when the developer tells them when they've strayed outside the
possibilities of the medium. A bad designer stamps their foot and
insists on a 200kb+ page with flash and iframes and all the text
rendered as graphics. Oddly enough such sites tend to get redeveloped
rather quickly when the marketing department looks at the results...

>> The point here is probably the difference between art (where without
>> the exact font the whole sense of the piece is changed) and design
>> (where the limitations of the medium are understood and where a font
>> can be used to enhance an experience but where the underlying message
>> can exist without that font). Normally I assume that people posting
>> here are designing web sites for some purpose not producing works of
>> art for art's sake.

>
>Of course. But art and design are part of EVERYTHING. Especially the
>latter. Without DESIGN you might as well not even start.


If a designer tells me that a site _must_ use a particular font then I
will conclude that said designer either doesn't understand the WWW as
a medium or that they have pretensions of art. They can suggest a font
and depending on a number of factors that font may or may not be seen
by some percentage of visitors.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <(E-Mail Removed)> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
SpaceGirl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2005
Steve Pugh wrote:

>>f it is delivered via WWW (Internet, HTTP) then it is
>>being comminicated OVER WWW.

>
>
> But if only a portion of the WWW can actually get the message that is
> communicated by these words in this exact font then only a portion can
> get the message. You're the one who claims that the look and feel may
> be the message. Not an adjunct to the message, not an enhancement of
> the message, not part of the message, but the actual message itself.
> How do you get that message across to people who can't see your font?


They do get the font. You were the one who said they cannot. Graphics or
Flash. While I dont think these are realy solutions for most cases,
there ARE occasions where you have to be opened minded and say, yeah
okay, for the sake of brand we can have a paragraph rendered as an
image. Or Flash. It is REALLY arrogant and short sighted to simply say
"no", which is what you did. You have to think more creatively than
that. The only limits here are ones YOU are setting. That doesn't
automatically make them applicable to everyone else.

>>You might as well say graphics are a subset
>>of the WWW given your definition

>
> They are.
>


They are part of it.

>>There are no "subsets"!

>
> Of course there are.


Only in a way that books are a subset of "media printed on paper".

>>WWW is a delivery medium. It can contain anything.

>
> And not everyone on the WWW can see everything that is delivered over
> it. Or hadn't you realised that yet?


Of COURSE. Duh. But you dont make web sites for "everone on the WWW". If
you're even trying, you're doing it wrong. You design for your audience,
not everyone.

>>>Then use an image. But don't expect everyone to be able to see it.
>>>Presumably the alt attribute will be empty as users who can't see the
>>>image can't get the content here at all?

>>
>>No, you take the usual steps.

>
>
> Please elaborate?


You do what is required to indicate a particular bit of media is not
available without the correct "viewer". You also provide the legally
required accessible versions of your content, where possible.

> If the look and feel is the message then how do I communicate that
> message if I can not use the look and feel?


You misunderstood

> I agree that there are cases where a particulat font may be needed (a
> typography tutorial may need to explain differences between fonts
> showing particular fonts) and in that case an image is the best option
> but by it's very nature the information in that image can not be fully
> communicated via an alt attribute. So the subset of the WWW that can
> not see the image can not get the message.


Yes. Because you dont design for everyone. Like any form of media, you
design for a particular audience.

> On the other hand if the font is an enhancement to the message (and
> not the message itself) you can use any of the techniques I outlined
> in my first post in this thread with the understanding that some part
> of your audience will get the message in its unenhanced form.


Yes of course. I'm not arguing against your technical advice at all (you
were quite right). I'm talking about bigger design issues

>>I was just annoyed by a bunch of people in
>>here who think standards, accessibility etc etc are more important that
>>actually providing something INTERESTING.

>
> Name one person who has ever said that? Give us references to some
> posts? Everyone here (well excepting Richard of course) is into
> providing interesting content. Those with some design talent will also
> be able to present that content in an interesting way.


Just read over the posts. See what the subjects are. It's all technical,
or people bitching about what you cannot.

> I'm not a designer (look at http://www.stevepugh.net/VTT/ for my
> latest personal site), I don't speak on design issues, but every day
> in my working life I advise designers on what is and is not possible
> and practical on the WWW. And that's what I'm doing in this thread -
> if your message needs a particular font then the message can not reach
> the whole WWW. That's a fact of the medium.


Which is wrong. Because there are ways of delivery a font to a client,
so long as they have a visual way of displaying content (ah, gotta have
your accessibility caveat )

>>Everyone is so ****ing
>>bothered about all this crap they are forgetting about THE DESIGN.

>
> As I said, part of design, indeed the key part, is understanding the
> medium you are working in.


Yes.

>
>>Whatever happened to innovation?

>
> It's alive and well.


Very little evidence of this outside of rich media sites.

>>For crying outloud, everyone is turning
>>into short-sighed web programmers who think validating HTML = the best
>>side ever design, and that anything vaguelly wiffing of "design" is bad.

>
>
> Again, who says that?
>


It's a general theme in here, and a number of other groups. Nobody ever
comments on designs. They just bitch about technical stuff.

> Validating HTML is about validating HTML, it has nothing to do with
> design.


Exactly.

> There is a huge range of designs that can be built with valid,
> semantically sound, accessible, usable code. A good designer listens
> when the developer tells them when they've strayed outside the
> possibilities of the medium. A bad designer stamps their foot and
> insists on a 200kb+ page with flash and iframes and all the text
> rendered as graphics. Oddly enough such sites tend to get redeveloped
> rather quickly when the marketing department looks at the results...


Yes.

>>Of course. But art and design are part of EVERYTHING. Especially the
>>latter. Without DESIGN you might as well not even start.

>
>
> If a designer tells me that a site _must_ use a particular font then I
> will conclude that said designer either doesn't understand the WWW as
> a medium or that they have pretensions of art. They can suggest a font
> and depending on a number of factors that font may or may not be seen
> by some percentage of visitors.
>
> Steve


You'd be wrong then. Sometimes "font X" is EXACTLY what is required
because it's part of brand or image. You must find a way to achieve that
without making your site unsable. A good designer will know that "fond
X" cannot be used for everything on the site, so wouldn't ask for it in
the first place. However were it IS required, you should provide it.

It is terribly short sighted to suggest WWW cannot be aristic, which
seems to be the jist of your comment. To me, it seems that you dont have
a clue about interacting with people on an emotional level. Art/Design
are one and the same thing. HOW design is more important that the
content. Always. If you get the design wrong, you may as well have the
no content. If you get the design right, it in itself can be form of
content (and this kinda gets very recursive. Never mind!).



--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
 
Reply With Quote
 
kchayka
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2005
SpaceGirl wrote:
>
> Everyone is so ****ing
> bothered about all this crap they are forgetting about THE DESIGN.


I wouldn't be so bothered if THE DESIGN didn't often get in the way of
actually using a site. Crappy design is abundant, good design is pretty
rare.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Swing Font, it's Java Font? ot native? how install new font? mttc Java 2 07-03-2009 07:29 PM
Nike air force one, air force 1, air force one low cut, air force one abdul_razak@indiatimes.com Digital Photography 2 12-31-2008 04:29 PM
Nike Air Force Ones,Air Force One Air Force One-1 lky52193@gmail.com Computer Support 0 01-17-2008 04:40 PM
Nike Air Force Ones,Air Force One Air Force One-1,25th anniversary lky52112@gmail.com Digital Photography 0 01-15-2008 04:46 PM
Nike Air Force Ones,Air Force One Air Force One-1,25th anniversary lky52112@gmail.com Digital Photography 0 01-15-2008 04:34 PM



Advertisments