- This topic is empty.
February 23, 2012 at 9:22 pm #36814
my font is coming out fat!
I’m using robot from font squirrel and heres the screenshots.
the first link below is how it should look and how it comes out on photoshop.
the second is a rendering in safariFebruary 23, 2012 at 9:50 pm #97350ArchDesignLabsParticipant
I have problems like this sometimes too and its typically due to the fact that I have styled the font in PS so it doesnt match what the web is producing. Check the text formatting in PS to make sure you havent made the text more condensed. Ultimately cant you just reduce the size on the web?February 23, 2012 at 10:02 pm #97351SenffParticipant
Are you using it for a H1, H2, H3, etc.? If you do, adding a simple
font-weight: normal;should fix it.
(I fall in this trap all the time!)February 23, 2012 at 10:34 pm #97354
in my font face there is a font-wiehgt: normal
in photoshop I’m using the default for the font nothing weird no kerning or anything…
maybe i should reduce the font weight… i dunno its weird…February 23, 2012 at 10:38 pm #97355February 23, 2012 at 10:38 pm #97356
mr roboto….. yup yup…
and i can’t lower font weight…it only goes down to 400 nothing less and its still fat…. they have a thin style maybe i should use that and it will look regular because its fatFebruary 23, 2012 at 10:44 pm #97357
Also known as Myriad, Helvetica, Univers, FF Din and Ronia in one.
It’s a poor typeface.February 23, 2012 at 10:47 pm #97359
i thought it was nice… being it has so many typefaces and i liked the condensed…
well I guess i could stick with helvetica but not all computers have thatFebruary 23, 2012 at 10:53 pm #97360
There are more condensed typefaces out there other than what Google and Adobe have to offer.
Also, that is what web fonts (and @font-face) are for…so we don’t have to rely on what others have installed on their computer.February 23, 2012 at 10:54 pm #97361joshuanhibbertMember
@ChristopherBurton I am not a fan of Roboto either, but as far as I am aware, it is fairly decent on Android devices. So I would be careful when calling it a poor typeface. It may not be great for use in print, or even on the web. But from the sounds of it, it does what it was designed to do very well.February 23, 2012 at 10:56 pm #97362
what about open-sans? another one I found.
whats your idea of a good sans-serif on font-squirrel?February 23, 2012 at 11:06 pm #97363February 23, 2012 at 11:09 pm #97365joshuanhibbertMember
I understand that you have an opinion of Roboto, and it is also one that I agree with; I was simply advising against flat out calling it a poor typeface. Maybe it would have been more constructive to explain why @shamai would be better off using something else?February 23, 2012 at 11:40 pm #97368
do you think the font roboto is not rendering nicely because its as you say ‘poor’
or is it something else?
open sans is nice but it doesn’t have a condensed…only condensed light which is…eh…
actually i just found condensed bold….a separate download …a little better looking…February 23, 2012 at 11:45 pm #97371
From the words of Stephen Coles about Roboto – Typographica.org
When an alphabet has such unrelated glyphs it can taste completely different depending on the word. “Fudge” is casual and contemporary. “Marshmallow” is rigid and classical. This is not a typeface. It’s a tossed salad. Or a four-headed Frankenstein. You never know which personality you’ll get.
I should clarify for you that what I meant as poor was not related to what it looks like on any device. It was actually to the fact that it has been thrown together with multiple typefaces that do not compliment each other as a whole.
- The forum ‘CSS’ is closed to new topics and replies.