@RaviDesai At the same time, most people can’t tell the difference between a good typeface from a bad one. And within the Google web font library, there are few that actually render well on screen. Google pays a very low amount to the Type Designer’s that submit to their library so perhaps that is why we’re seeing low standards. And as Matthew Butterick said, “Google Web Fonts aren’t really open source”.
Typekit on the other hand at least cares about their product quality over product quantity. They make sure the fonts are hinted and render properly. Whether it be from the foundry or by doing it themselves. Typekit isn’t perfect either but at least they’re trying.
I’ll be writing an article in a few months with another advocate for type designers and I’ll drop a link in this thread when it’s out.
In all fairness, Typekit selection is vastly superior. Some of the best fonts ever designed are on Typekit: FF Scala, FF Absara, FF Meta, Adobe Minion, Futura, Gill Sans, and other masterful creations. You just don’t get this plateau of quality with Google fonts.
Having said that, I would not subscribe to Typekit. They merely provide a service, i. e., you don’t get to keep the fonts. I’d rather pay a bit more upfront but get them fonts for life.
Slightly OT, I’m unsure about the technicalities so I’d like some clearing up:
– Do Typekit and Google Fonts resort to the same font loading method?
– Are there drawbacks to setting up a subfolder with your fonts of choice and referring to it via the @font-face declaration vs scripting and other methods?
I have used Google Fonts in the past, but now use TypeKit as you get their best package included in Adobe Creative Cloud.
TypeKit’s selection is infinately better, but for a 100% free service, Google is really good and does have a few gems.
Another advantage with both is a high quality set of scripts to get them working. @import still isn’t totally relaible, so to have methods developed and tested by the likes of Adobe and Google is a plus point.
> Having said that, I would not subscribe to Typekit. They merely provide a service, i. e., you don’t get to keep the fonts. I’d rather pay a bit more upfront but get them fonts for life.
Unfortunately that’s not possible. Adobe explicitly forbids embedding .ttf/.otf files of Adobe fonts directly into a webpage in their EULA. That’s kind of the whole point of Typekit (and WebINK etc): to use Adobe fonts on the web.
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.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.