Login or Register

Login, Buttercup!


Are you looking to grow as a designer and developer? Tired of going to places that don't offer any valuable discussion and content? Well Drawar is here for you. You control the content and seeing as how you are the type of person that thrives on writing great stuff this site is only going to get better after you join.

 

Is Typekit the future?

First, let me start off by saying that Typekit is a great idea and a spectacular service. However, one has to wonder how long we will need services like this to finally be able to use the fonts that we dreamed of for years on the web.

With so many innovations in technology, it's sad to know that what holds us back is the version number of a browser people are using. CSS3 and it's related technologies help to expand the web as it should be expanded, but we are still held back because some companies don't wish to get on the boat.

So to answer my own question I don't think Typekit is the future, really it is just a stopgap. However, it is one that I am glad is around.

 

Discussion (18)

I think that in a near future there will be a lot of Typekit-like websites. Web Fonts are a reality, one that is long overdue, and you can use them on a normal website without worrying too much about compatibility.

Right now I think that the only big modern browsers that don't support Webfonts are Opera and Chrome. Funny how Google is quick to adapt or "force" HTML5 to get features that benefit their services, but don't seem to be in a hurry to implement web fonts which is a feature that benefits their users. But that's another talk for another topic.

The biggest problem with webfonts is that Microsoft has said that they don't have plans to implement @font-face support, but they would continue to support their very old "eot" format, which was never widely adopted.

Although the software used to create the eot fonts was horrible, it was plagued with bugs, there was no mac version, etc. The idea Microsoft had to help font-makers secure their licenses was good.

.EOT files allow you to use a custom font on a single domain, a group of them, or even only specific folders inside domains (if I'm not mistaken). The current "open" font initiatives that Safari and Firefox use don't have this limitation, so there are a lot of people reluctant on using webfonts because of licensing issues (anyone can download them, redistribute them, leech them from other sites, etc).

Typekit erases those licensing issues by becoming the middle man and limiting the font usage in specific domains, like EOT does.

They also have the trouble of replacing the fonts properly in EOT or one of the open formats, depending on your browser, that way you don't have to convert fonts twice to get them to show up on a website.

Eventually one day it will be possible for us to acquire fonts with licenses that permit their use on websites or specific domains. But I wouldn't hold my breath for that.

If you're wondering why I'm suggesting it will take a long time for licenses to catch up to the modern days, just look at what the music industry is doing. If it weren't for another middle man (Apple) they'd be in a worse place right now.

Unless you have an extreme need for 99.99% browser compatibility across the board, I don't think you should miss out on using a service like Typekit.

 

Another advantage of TypeKit that I don't see mentioned is the pricing. A small price for a full year of font usage really is a bargain in my opinion. If most of these foundries were it on their own they would probably be charging more and if you wished to buy the font out right it would definitely be more.

Typekit allows for the flexibility of changing out fonts. However, if the font you are using is for branding issues I would look into what type of licensing you could use with the font if you just purchased it yourself.

I'm amazed though at how quickly many designers are switching over to it and @font-face. It's good to see that they are pushing things forward, with or without the browser makers. I think we have waited too long for this technology and having to wait any longer simply doesn't make sense. While some people won't get to experience the joys of great typography on the web, that doesn't mean everyone shouldn't get to experience it.

Is Typekit the future? Again, I don't see it being the future, but a nice alternative that will find its niche.

 
 
 

I fear what Chris is saying but at the same time I embrace what is to come. With unlimited web fonts designers will need to start caring more about typography, the bad ones will make horrible sites, but the new ones have a whole new world to explore.

I just dipped my toe in a typography book and I had no idea what to expect, it was a great surprise.

 

I've been using Cufon for a while and have been reasonably happy (as happy as you can be with typography on the web) so far. The main drawback is, of course, the dearth of freely licensed fonts available to use, which is what's exciting about Typekit.

Is anybody currently using Typekit on a site they wouldn't mind sharing?

 
 
 
 

I think Typekit is here to stay, for a couple reasons.

First, it's cheap: for under $100 a year, you get a license to a large library of some very high quality fonts. Buying the Typekit library on its own would cost thousands, possibly tens of thousands. That's extremely appealing to small design firms and freelancers.

Second, Typekit offers a lot of control for font foundries. Foundries get protection of their intellectual property (i.e. the fonts) that won't be possible otherwise until WOFF gains wide adoption (and at the moment, only the latest version of Firefox supports it).

There are other things that Typekit does to make it dead simple to handle all the font embedding (FontSquirrel's font-face generator is very good, for example), but those two are pretty inherent to the way Typekit (and similar services) work.

 

No.

TypeKit is an ok choice for the time. I really don't think the amount of fonts is limiting the possibilities of the web. I also don't think there are that many people making websites who understand typography. Also, TypeKit fonts aren't protected. I've tried and succeeded.

Marco: What are you talking about? Chrome and Opera support @font-face. (source)

 

@Marco: Microsoft is an official sponsor of the WOFF format. I haven't seen confirmation that IE9 will support it, but I think it's a fairly safe bet. Firefox and Opera already do and Webkit will soon. Then, wait five years for older browsers to pass into obsolescence and we'll have a central web font format!

 

I'm using the service on one of my sites and I think it's great. I know I can find my own free fonts and convert them to all the formats using font-squirrel, but you have to worry about licensing issues, compatibility, selection, etc. I like that Typekit handles all the bullshit and I can just pick fonts.

Only thing i dont like is that I think it is still difficult to use the service for client sites. I think it will be a tough sell getting clients to pay a subscription fee just to have a "cool" font. I think they need to have a 1 website, 1 up-front price plan or something.

 

Wow, regardless of the initial (old) topic here - that's big news. Of course it certainly answers the question about TK's future.

Imagine though how this could affect the appearance of user content through Google: Blogger blogs, Google Docs (including polls and surveys!), emails (why not?), portfolios and picture sites through Sites and Picasa...

Of course, some users will ab-use this and 'design' horrible layouts with it but what can you do.

Mind you, it could also signal a very personal user experience for all Google generated content.

Want to set your preferences to see search results in Garamond? Fine. Do you prefer Droid Mono for YouTube? Just click your preferences and presto. Feeds in Helvetica? Go ditch your userstyles and you're done.(*)

Pretty interesting...

(*)Or similar open source font-families of course

 

@Michael (ThatDeadPixel) Agree on the pricing. Even for me, as I try out fonts and designs for clients, their pricing schemes seems off.

Can't remember their specifics, but often the free account limitations don't allow you to fully test the service, while the paid versions are too expensive for small biz usage.

Clients want it to look nice but reel back when you say you need licences for fonts. That's why I always say upfront: either get the licence before you suggest a font, or let me pick a couple open source alternatives.

 
 

I am very excited for webfonts.fonts.com. (This needs a decent brand name, lets be honest.)

I think Typekit is a great service but I believe fonts.com has exclusivity over Linotype fonts in this area?

From a legal perspective, these services should become the standard, it cleans up any copyright issues, keeping the font foundries happy with @font-face.

 
 

Respond To This Post

You need to Login or Register to comment. Become a member of this great community because you like to be a rebel and actually learn on a website.

Recent Posts

Title Last Reply Replies
 

© Emersian // About // Pimped out hosting by (mt)