Grow your CSS skills. Land your dream job.

TypeKit vs Google Web Fonts

  • # February 28, 2013 at 3:02 pm

    There are lots of fonts on Google Web Fonts that don’t render nicely but there can be found pretty good fonts… And as it’s free, easy to use and good on performance it’s pretty cool and must for all web designers. Typekit has more quality fonts and if you do some serious work and can’t find anything that match your needs on Google Web Fonts go for it. So both is my opinion. And those that lacks Typekit in Photoshop my advice is that you definitely have to design typography in browsers.

    # February 28, 2013 at 3:43 pm

    Can anyone recommend a free developer to build my site? I don’t think it will take that long, perhaps a month?

    # February 28, 2013 at 4:22 pm

    If it’s for free on Google and its on Typekit as well, is Typekit better because it’s paid? :P If you got good arguments I’m happy to listen but I just don’t think that because it’s free it makes it bad, a lot of great stuff is free!

    # February 28, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    >a lot of great stuff is free!

    Breathing FTW. ;)

    # February 28, 2013 at 5:25 pm

    If you do some simple research you will find that Typekit actually works hard for their customers. That includes manually optimizing their library. Something Google does not do. And there are paid products that are better than their free competitors.

    # February 28, 2013 at 9:48 pm

    Using google you can host them on your site and call them via @font-face correct???

    # February 28, 2013 at 9:54 pm

    Never mind I think. I believe this is how https://developers.google.com/webfonts/docs/getting_started

    # February 28, 2013 at 10:17 pm

    Or this? http://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/

    # March 1, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    I’m actually going to use font squirl. And use its webfont kit. That seems like the easiest way to host it on my own servers. I prefer to host my own junk. I don’t buy into the google hosting fanominon.

    # March 2, 2013 at 12:11 pm

    Typekit and Google both use the same font loading technology. I’m on my iPhone at the moment but I’m sure someone can help you with finding it.

    If the webfont is in Font Squirrel’s library, go for it.

    Also, if you want to host the webfonts on your own server, there are a few distributors who allow you to do this. Of course it won’t be free which I find a good thing. We should support type designers just as much as we support developers or web designers.

    # March 2, 2013 at 3:54 pm

    “We should support type designers just as much as we support developers or web designers.”

    Well said Chris. This aversion to paying for fonts is really baffling, especially when it’s coming from other designers.

    # March 2, 2013 at 4:10 pm

    I can understand if some have very little income to support paying for fonts/webfonts but to advocate a distributor who refuse to filter the quality that comes in, well, I just wish they educated themselves on this subject, whether they agree or disagree. It’s important not only so they can educate others but to improve the quality of their work as well. Remember that text makes up the majority of the web.

    Anyway, thanks for being a supporter @dfogge.

    # April 6, 2013 at 12:58 am

    I started using Google Fonts and liked a lot so far, the freeness does help. However, Typekit’s library looks very appealing too. I’m starting to consider making the switch, even if I had to pay a little bit more.

    I’m curious about the quality of each one. For example, If I’m using Ubuntu through Typekit, will it be significantly different (better) than if I’m using it through Google Fonts?

    I’ve realized that font rendering quality varies a lot depending on the OS and the browser. It would be very nice if Typekit could help in this issue.

    # April 6, 2013 at 2:32 am

    There are really well designed and optimized fonts in Google’s library (Droid Sans, Droid Serif, Open Sans, Arimo, etc). But many seem to be autohinted or poorly manually hinted.

    This is somewhat related so let me quote Pablo Impallari regarding Google’s library and webfonts in general:

    “Some are Print-fonts converted for web use, and some are specifically tailored for the web, such as: Open Sans, Source Sans, Merriweather, Domine, Libre Baskerville and a few more. “

    “There are a few notable exceptions, where web-fonts were specially designed/tailored for the web and have key differences compared to their print-version (bigger x-height, wider, open counters, loose spacing, less contrast, etc…) such as the Webtype RE series, H&FJ smart screen fonts, Typoteque Screen fonts, and some other smaller foundries such as Monokrom and Letters From Sweden. There may be others that I’m missing now, but so far very few.”

    Typekit’s library has flaws too, though. From what I understand, they do review each typeface that is offered and make adjustments if need be (but not always when needed). I think it depends on their agreement with the foundry as some optimize their own webfonts. Above @chriscoyier mentions that Typekit doesn’t offer open-source fonts which he may not have been aware of but they do, even libre fonts.

    I can personally vouch for Webtype’s RE webfonts. They render incredibly well even at extremely small sizes (9px).

    I’m curious about the quality of each one. For example, If I’m using Ubuntu through Typekit, will it be significantly different (better) than if I’m using it through Google Fonts?

    It depends because Typekit will sometimes optimize fonts in their library. Ubuntu is open source so basically anyone is allowed to make adjustments, which it seems they have done here compared to what is in Google’s library.

    I’ve realized that font rendering quality varies a lot depending on the OS and the browser. It would be very nice if Typekit could help in this issue.

    They offer screenshots of how the webfont will render in each browser and platform (including on the Ubuntu OS).

    # April 6, 2013 at 6:31 am

    I don’t know if you meant me when in an earlier post but I never tried to advocate the use of Google Webfonts, just wanted a solid reason to prefer paid font suppliers over free ones for using the same font… which brings me to:

    > Ubuntu is a libre font so basically anyone is allowed to make adjustments, which it seems they have done here compared to what is in Google’s library.

    You have my attention, please elaborate :)

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 81 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

*May or may not contain any actual "CSS" or "Tricks".