I’ve used @font-face lots, and while the possibilities of using new typefaces is indeed exciting, it’s a little disappointing how varied the rendered results are.
Using Museo Sans 500, for instance, looked awful in small sizes in Firefox, but more legible in Safari. When Chrome for Mac finally came out, my medium-sized text looked gorgeous (I should probably post about this somewhere). Where Firefox, Safari, and even IE had got the anti-aliasing so fat that it looked bold, Chrome had somehow produced what I was expecting in the first place.
Combined with the licensing and filesize issues, it is clear there is some way to go for typography on the web. CSS3 has some really exciting typographic options, that we’re all going to enjoy some time in the future – but for now, we can only take the best bits out of this early technology. How all of the sub-pixel & hinting complications will be resolved, I am not sure, but I look forward to it.
Phil Ricketts
I’ve used @font-face lots, and while the possibilities of using new typefaces is indeed exciting, it’s a little disappointing how varied the rendered results are.
Using Museo Sans 500, for instance, looked awful in small sizes in Firefox, but more legible in Safari. When Chrome for Mac finally came out, my medium-sized text looked gorgeous (I should probably post about this somewhere). Where Firefox, Safari, and even IE had got the anti-aliasing so fat that it looked bold, Chrome had somehow produced what I was expecting in the first place.
Combined with the licensing and filesize issues, it is clear there is some way to go for typography on the web. CSS3 has some really exciting typographic options, that we’re all going to enjoy some time in the future – but for now, we can only take the best bits out of this early technology. How all of the sub-pixel & hinting complications will be resolved, I am not sure, but I look forward to it.
I’m just grateful we have another tool to use.