Google Fonts at their best
# July 7, 2014 at 10:16 am
I know… but things are still much better than they used to be. All things being equal, I think GWF might be the best option out there. For example… there are two projects I’m working on that won’t really accommodate any other service for a multitude of reasons that I don’t care to list. Suffice it to say that the licensing of quality fonts is not suited to all projects and is quite frankly archaic. So, I get excited when I see Google Fonts used in a way that even resembles good print design.
That being said, I think my standards are much less exacting than yours. You’re a TRUE typophile. I just dabble.# July 7, 2014 at 8:32 pm
It’s a fantastic service to bundle with themes, though.
So, that’s basically the project I’m using it for. Custom themes for a custom theme engine. They work perfect for that because Typekit and other similar services have too many restrictions and require you to add domains from the dashboard. So, GWF it is. But, I don’t know, I feel like they look pretty nice for what they are.# July 10, 2014 at 10:08 am
and is quite frankly archaic – @Joe_Temp
I’ll have to strongly disagree there and say it’s quite the opposite. In a perfect web-based world, we’d all have Retina screens and wouldn’t have to worry so much about hinting. Regardless of that, quality is not the only aspect of a typeface (e.g. readability).
It’s a fantastic service to bundle with themes, though. – @TheDoc
I would agree that it is more standard because of the simplicity. That’s not to say that GWF doesn’t come with great webfonts. Steve Matteson has done great work for them. Really great work.
Typekit and other similar services have too many restrictions and require you to add domains from the dashboard. – @Joe_Temp
What restrictions are you speaking of? I wouldn’t say adding domains to a dashboard (site.com, localhost) would be considered a restriction.# July 10, 2014 at 11:14 am
I’ll have to strongly disagree there and say it’s quite the opposite.
I’m talking about the way in which fonts are licensed. Font licensing practices were created at a time when things were not easily pirated in a digital world… back in the print era. Now, licenses are essentially on the honor system. It’s really, really, really easy to steal a font and turn it into a web font with the help of Font Forge. That’s horrible. The reason quality fonts are SO expensive is because they get stolen all the time. So, the people who do pay are in effect punished monetarily. Foundries don’t say this but it’s true. It’s an out-dated model.
I am in no way saying that typeface designers shouldn’t get paid. Quite the opposite. I think what they do is wonderful and they should get paid. The model for licensing needs to change though. That’s true in fonts, movies, music, art, etc. Technology crept up on all these industries and they were all WOEFULLY unprepared.
I wouldn’t say adding domains to a dashboard (site.com, localhost) would be considered a restriction.
It is for the project I’m talking about. I’m packaging themes right now for a client who has NO IDEA where these themes will be used or by whom. We have absolutely no way to know in advance the domains that will use these themes and want the fonts that go with them. On a distributed project like that, Typekit won’t work.# July 10, 2014 at 10:07 pm
I think the bottom line is: what is it that you’re looking for. If you really don’t care one way or another, then Google is more than fine (since, you know, you’d be using Helvetica or something similar without it). But if you really want to stand out with great webfonts and you actually do care alot, then you pay for the premium. There’s a reason people buy Audi’s at the end of the day instead of Toyotas.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.