Kommentare zu: Webfont-Woche, Fontcast #5: Erik Spiekermann

Von: kosmar

kosmar — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:58:15 +0000

… 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! :)

Von: kosmar

kosmar — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:41:48 +0000

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 …)

Von: Jürgen Siebert

Jürgen Siebert — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:08:11 +0000

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, …

Von: Carlo Krüger, Hamburg

Carlo Krüger, Hamburg — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:59:42 +0000

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 ^^

Von: kosmar

kosmar — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:38:21 +0000

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?

Von: Stephen Coles

Stephen Coles — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:32:47 +0000

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.

Von: kosmar

kosmar — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:06:40 +0000

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.

Von: kosmar

kosmar — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:00:40 +0000

https://typekit.com/plans ?

Von: erik spiekermann

erik spiekermann — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:19:26 +0000

with Typekit, you don’t have to buy any fonts at all, and the ones they offer all have web licenses.

Von: kosmar

kosmar — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:35:45 +0000

sure. but why pay for a service, that i can do myself? – depending on the license of course.

Von: erik spiekermann

erik spiekermann — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:11:35 +0000

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.

Von: kosmar

kosmar — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:53:53 +0000

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.

Von: Raketentim

Raketentim — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 06:04:31 +0000

word.