Erik Spiekermann, wie er leibt und lebt: 100 Wörter/Minute, ohne Punkt und Komma … Er spricht über die Unmöglichkeit, Schrift zu besitzen. Interviewer Stephen Coles: »I pulled him aside one morning during ATypI in Mexico City to talk about the interesting parallels between using web fonts as a service and typesetting the old-fashioned way.«
Rubriken
- Aktuell (793)
- Reportage (176)
- Tipp (453)
- Schriftgeschichten (49)
- Rote Karte (83)
- Gelbe Karte (242)
- Spaß (227)
- In eigener Sache (443)
- Hochschule (145)
- Persönliches (29)
- Designdiskurs (42)
-
Werbung
-
Hier Ihre Kleinanzeige!
Über 7500 aktive, designinte-
ressierte Leser/Tag erreichen.
www.fontblog.de/werbung
-
-
Dranbleiben
Startseite
Über Fontblog
Impressum
Werbung im Fontblog
Archiv
word.
i am not completely convinced, sorry.
this sounds a bit like propaganda to me.
depending on just another server on top is generally no good idea.
therefore i like cufon and typeface.js for now and @font-face soon. i hope we all have seen http://nicewebtype.com/fonts/ – there is nobody “in the middle” whom i have to rely on and pay for.
typekit et al would make foundries look smarter than the music industry, but not smart enough i am afraid.
You may have also noticed that Bello and Proxima Nova, as shown on that site, are available through Typekit.
That will not be the end of the way to get decent type onto the web, but it is a beginning.
sure. but why pay for a service, that i can do myself? – depending on the license of course.
with Typekit, you don’t have to buy any fonts at all, and the ones they offer all have web licenses.
https://typekit.com/plans ?
erik, i was talking about paying, not buying. i’m pretty sure you know about the difference.
i am just thinking about: would i use cufon or typeface.js with a web-licensed font (say from adobe) for free and unlimited or would i use typekit for 49.99/year including bandwidth throttle and a limit of 5 websites.
what would you do? i’m asking seriously – as i only see few advantages in that game for typekit right now.
Kosmar, as Erik alludes, we recognize that Typekit may not be the right solution for everyone. It’s just the first option that was ready to go now. There will be other ways to license web fonts soon.
i understand and i know typekit and alike are great tool in themselves. just please help me to decide and educate people about it: for whom exactly would it be the right solution right now?
I love CSS font embedding, I love woff, cufon, sifr and typeface.js. I tried all … but »does it work in $#%§& Internet Explorer?« Any new technique is unusable if we exclude about 40% of the users. At the moment you can only use a combination of eot, woff and otf like Fontsquirrel does to reach all users. But there is the licensing problem and noone really want to use only freefonts.
Btw: R.I.P Bitstream Webfont Maker ^^
Typekit is a subscription based system, with its own security codes (encryption, DRM, …). It is the best tool at the moment to experiment with web typography. You can do it for free if you choose the Trial Library.
Woff- or EOT-Webfonts will basically be licensed as font licensing works at the moment in the prepress area: pay a flat rate and go ahead.
It depends what model works better for you: the variety of typefaces, love or hate subscriptions, size of your traffic, size of your company, …
Thx. thats a good description. Only thing: doesn’t the experience of the music industry tell us that drm is probably a failure by default? That’s my main doubt. (Sorry for false apostrophes. This is typed on an android phone …)
… or to put it another way and deface the picture used in the movie: do i really not own paper and ink when i get me something printed at the printer? I usually take the paper with the ink printed on it with me and do with it whatever i want to do, including selling or burning it. DRM-free. This parallel sounds very orthogonal to me. Discuss! :)