Call me Webmail.
I make web pages. And now that the latest browsers are supporting @font-face, I’ve been taking to the sites where fonts are sold.
I’ve never needed to go shopping for fonts before. And I’m distressed by what I see. And I’m distressed by what I don’t see.
First, let me tell you what I want: I want to see a browser-friendly and well-categorized selection of fonts. I want prices that make sense within the overall cost structure of the sites that I make. And I want licensing terms that give me the flexibility to do what I need to do. I don’t design signs, or magazines, or advertisements. Those folks have their needs, and I have mine. I make web pages. If you don’t have anything to sell me, or you just don’t want to deal with customers unfamiliar with your ways, that’s OK. Just tell me up front and I’ll move on. But please don’t waste my time. Or lead me on. Or ask me to fill out a special form or in any other way subject me to a level of scrutiny greater than your other customers. I won’t be vetted. I won’t be frisked. I’ll just get angry. And I’ll Twitter about it. I like Twitter.
So let me say it again one more time: I want a browser-friendly and well-categorized selection, at prices that make sense to me and my clients, and with liberal licensing. This is what I need.
Just so we understand each other, here’s some dos and dont’s:
Show Me Browser-Friendly Fonts
By browser friendly, I mean fonts that look halfway decent in a browser. I know that quality will differ from font to font. But if you have fonts designed strictly for print work, that look like hell in a browser, weed them out. I don’t want to see them. Fonts either look OK, or they don’t. Details like hinting, no hinting, TrueType, OpenType CFF – that’s your business, not mine. If I’m using Flash, or Cufón, or some other font embedding technology, I already know my choices are greater and I’ll look at your other fonts then.
Show Me A Web Font Specimen
I can’t tell what your font looks like in a browser unless I view it in a browser. How you do that is up to you. Find a way or don’t waste my time. Perhaps some sort of glyph-limited set is the answer. Or one without kerning. Or perhaps the methods developed by font-obfuscation services like Typekit can be used. Or maybe a combination of these. But if you can’t or won’t take the time and effort to show me an accurate sample of what I’m buying, I won’t be buying. At least not from you. I make web pages. It’s very competitive. My clients don’t make allowances for me, so I can’t make them for you, either.
Tell Me What The License Is Up Front
I want to know what the web licensing terms are before I do anything. In plain language. With a link to it on the home page and not buried away somewhere. If you feel the need for legalese, have it follow the plain language version. If the EULA says that if my site succeeds I have to come back and give you more money. I’ll probably walk. More visitors does not necessarily mean more cash. If the EULA contains all sorts of “if this, then that” provisions that require a lawyer to interpret and an assistant to keep track of, goodbye. In my world, I usually buy once and then I’m done. I’m good to go. That’s it. Adios, amigos.
Don’t Restrict Me To Pre-Processed Files
If for some reason you insist on delivering only WOFF or EOT files, I’m not interested. I’ll just convert them to TTF or OTF anyway so you might as well leave the conversions up to me. Unless it’s as a part of a courtesy package with the source files included. I might need or want to install these fonts in the operating system as part of the development process. I won’t inconvenience myself for you. If this bothers you, like I said, it’s OK. Tell me the licensing terms up front, and I won’t hold it against you.
Don’t Ask Me To Enforce Same-Origin Restrictions
Like I said, I’m not going to agree to assume additional costs just to please you. And sometimes I don’t have complete control over the administration of the server. I can probably comply with a request to not enable hot-linking to my site, but that’s all I can or am willing to do.
To sum up:
I don’t find anything I’ve asked you to do to be unreasonable. But even so, you may disagree. You may feel that somehow, you can reap the benefits of digital distribution without accepting the disadvantages. If so, I wish you luck with that, and all the best.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
In your world, as a web developer… what have you brought once?
Just curious…
Hi David.
Well, naturally I’m very proud to have gotten David Berlow to post to my blog. That’s a real accomplishment. Seriously.
Anyway, the answer is: quite a few things, actually. But I think my best work is yet to come.
That’s what I find exciting, don’t you? The challenges ahead. I got detoured from what I really loved doing for awhile but happily I’m back on track. My work as a web yenta here is just a part of the mix.
But how do I talk you into contributing to Readable Web? I’ve read some of your “straight” stuff and its great. We both care a lot about many of the same things. And we’re both quite a bit distressed about many of the same things, too.
Imagine me and you, two pains in the asses, teamed up?
Look, as far as what you probably perceive as meddling in your business by an outsider goes, I can understand it if you’re a bit miffed – but all I’ve been doing is stating the obvious. And it’s the obvious you should be miffed with, not me.
Font Squirrel is raking it in, and web designers are getting into the habit of going there first. And all because he asked the simple questions: What is it that web designers/developers are going to need? And in what form are they going to need it?
Surely you could, as an experiment, “webify” a small part of Font Bureau’s catalog to see what develops. What could be wrong with that?
Want to see what I can do? Then tell me you’re up for what I just described. Pick a small selection of your catalog that looks good onscreen and let me run with it. You might be pleasantly surprised.
With the greatest respect,
rich
I’m flattered to be so invited here. And, I think I am contributing to Readable Web.
So, I’m asking, what have you as a web developer, ever bought once?
Meanwhile, I’ve got to start the wrecking ball on CSS font “size” because it is hideously inadequate for the increasingly popular @font-face, don’t you agree?
I’ve bought fonts for test purposes. I’ll check and give you a list. Not extensive, of course, because the fonts aren’t licensed for web use!
Now, I might take issue with some aspects of copyright on the public policy level, but the only thing anyone will ever hear from me as far as licensing goes is: “Fulfill your obligations”.
But c’mon David, am I supposed to buy in the hope that one day, those vendors will send me an email telling me that the EULA has been amended retroactively and it’s now OK to use those fonts in a web page subject to certain conditions? You see the problem.
Browsers handle font size like shit if you ask me. I’m with you there. The font/size zoom features in every one of them make no sense. On that, I have some researcher-like things to say that I’m working on. BTW – your first post riled me – not because of the @font-face stuff – but because it reminded me of how much I’ve got on the back-burner that I need to get out the door. It’s been a bad year for my family health-wise and it’s taken a toll on me.
With CSS, there’s one glaring omission which affects @font-face greatly: Whereas I can create a “font stack” that tells the browser which font-family name to fallback to if the one “on top” of it in the stack is unavailable, there’s no elegant way to also swap the size. In other words, selecting a fallback font-family is easy, but getting the metrics to match up somewhat with the font it’s replacing is a nightmare.
And then there’s the problem of physical screen size. Had a quick conversation with Keven Larson about this. We’ve had “plug and play” technology for how long now? Why the frack doesn’t the display announce it’s physical size to the OS? Handy to know that, right? Kevlar said something to the effect that display manufacturers have just been sloppy and ignorant about it so far but that MS was working with them to get more useful info.
Who was it that said, “We work in dark. We give what we can.”? Well, we’re still in the dark for sure.
I find the stuff being done with font features exciting, but there are nuts and bolts issues regarding font sizing and rendering that have still not been adequately addressed. Not by a long shot. I’m sure that’s got your vote, too.
As far as starting the wrecking ball, like I said, CSS is like a mountain, it won’t wreck, but you can add to the pile and do some drilling into it.
Some things might forever require a programmatic workaround.
Gotta run, but soon I’m going to be writing a post about this: The people who make browsers – and that includes the standards bodies and other think tanks like the W3C – are, at least in field of publishing, the most important people in the world right now. They have enormous power. It just fell into their hands. The decisions they are making today will affect the world long after you and I are dead. And so, they need to be watched and niggled and cajoled by people on the outside of the circle, because we can see things that they, from their vantage point cannot see. I have a specific example in mind.
But later. And I’ll be sending you an email.
rich
I am a web designer and font developer. I understand why you are impatient with the foundries, I want to see more web fonts available too, but this is too new to expect all the foundries to jump on board. Most type designers aren’t comfortable with putting raw fonts on the web. Not just that but most type designers design for print and haven’t considered how type looks on the screen. When there is universal support for WOFF and EOT you will see a lot more quality fonts available but until then give us some time to create security systems, web font business models, and well hinted fonts for the screen. All of this takes time, yes we could go with the TypeKit security and business model but I am not thrilled with their business model. I like Kernest better, but they have very little security for raw fonts. You can expect to see a lot more from the type industry soon, but give us some time to work things out.
Hi Scott
“Most type designers aren’t comfortable with putting raw fonts on the web.”
I believe font designers will be only slightly more comfortable with making WOFF or EOT Lite files available, which is to say, not comfortable at all. Conversion will always be an easy matter.
But if these formats are acceptable, why not begin licensing for those? The answer is that the push for a web font format to provide a “garden fence” of protection against being installed into the OS was never about creating a lively market for web fonts. The retail font industry has never, ever been truly gung ho about web fonts, ever. Just talk. Why sell web fonts if there’s a lively enough market for print? A market they know and understand and has, after all, paid the bills for professional type designers so far. Remember, there has been absolutely no market for web fonts at all. It’s totally unproven that you can make a nickel off it.
As I reported elsewhere, the primary concern among retail font vendors is that selling to the public (web authors, both professional and amateur) will bring price concessions that will bring down the price they can charge their professional print customers. They are concerned about a general devaluation.
It’s all about price, price, price. Now, I have no idea whether this fear is rational or not. I’m just reporting it. It comes from sources within the professional type community. And it explains behavior that, until I learned this, I was at a complete loss to explain.
Naturally, nobody in the type business is going to come right out and say, “All in all we’d rather not market our product to Internet people.” But as hard as it might be for you to accept – and me, too – that’s the way it is.
It’s fine with me, really. Moving forward without the involvement of the “professionals” brings greater challenges.
We must absolutely have good fonts for web use. Somebody is going to make them. It’s just a question of with what tools and how long it is going to take.
I, too, thought it was as simple as font designers not wanting to see raw fonts posted on web servers but it goes much deeper than that unfortunately.
Regards, rich
I’m with you Richard. There is a vast market of developers who are going to laugh at the hoops foundries will want them to jump through. K.I.S.S. Web developers are used to having everything for free and open-source. Are they really willing to pay annual fees, fill out forms etc, every time they need a font. Ha!
Hi Ethan
The great majority of font designers don’t get it. And I can’t say I blame them, either.
So far, they have made their livings selling under a presumed copyright to other copyright industries under laws that were designed for exactly that.
(I advocate nothing. But Webmail thinks that fonts as copyrighted software in their totality is not well-settled law. He wants me to use “presumed”. )
The copyright laws were not designed for average consumers to understand. It was never expected that it would ever effect them directly.
Current copyright laws cannot even be taught because even copyright lawyers don’t understand them. At least not without referencing the hundreds if not thousands of pages in the copyright statutes.
And so, when faced with a EULA that has provisions for this, that, and the other thing, the average person is going to say, “This isn’t worth the trouble. What the hell is all this about?”
And head for where they can get it free.
However, the increase in font usage and demand alone should create a bonanza for anybody with a copy of Fontlab. Just on fee for service.
Thanks for confirming that I’m not nuts. Already knew that, but the font design community is so used to talking amongst themselves and reinforcing their own notions about how things are going to be, that I’ve become the bearer of ill tidings, destroyer of worlds, simply because my fictional colleague Webmail tells it like it is.
I don’t normally like to add commercial sites to the blogroll here at Readable Web if I can help it. But I’m going to be adding a link to Font Squirrel. No site has done more.
Regards, rich
{ 2 trackbacks }