Dear font creating/licensing world,

fuck you and your stupid license models from the dark ages.
If I use your font to print a few million newspapers is ok and only about 50 bucks but if I want to include it on my website is going to cost me my first born son for every 50k requests?

No making an image and including is not fucking in the mobile first era...

Now I have to use fonts from Google because they are least fucking understand the needs of our times (in terms of font licensing)

  • 4
    Wait how do they check for the requests? And how will they handle ddos attacks or crawlers?
  • 0
    @alexbrooklyn no clue, never went and bought the licence for web. I just wanted to bring an old website to the mobile first era and had to replace a couple of image text blocks.

    Byw it's ok to use the font in the image you created with the print license and publish that on your website smh...
  • 0
    @Tamrael For larger logo stuff, you can convert that to SVG which scales perfectly especially on hi-DPI.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop thanks but the use-case for this was text in the content of the website in that font with text in normal don't every other line. Luckily I found a close enough font on Google Fonts and nobody ever noticed. If it would only have been one image I would have converted that into svg for sure
  • 4
    @Tamrael this is the way.
    Either I get fonts from designers, or I find Google’s closest match
  • 6
    @C0D4 @Tamrael This.
    So many fonts look so similar to others that there is zero reason to pay for any of them. There is always a clone.
  • 1
    You could, you know, just not use fonts.
  • 0
    I love browsing dafont but it's got to be google for the web.
  • 0
    I once bought a bunch of exljbris fonts (Museo, Anivers & Calluna) on fontspring, because I like the fonts, and fontspring has a pretty good license model. Only did it because client was paying anyway though.

    Otherwise, I just use Google Fonts.
  • 9
    @vorticalbox Designers hate e.g. Verdana and its Mac/Linux counterparts for body text because of two reasons:

    1) it's readable
    2) no download time.

    Going for some Google font has three main points:

    1) reducing readability
    2) making websites load slower
    3) privacy issues as added bonus.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop "Sounds like a win to me!"
  • 0
    @vorticalbox sure, I'll just tell the client to shut up and that his designer is stupid. Shut already did that but they won't pay unless the font is in :(
  • 0
    I just want to throw IBM plex into here. In my opinion clean and good to read font. It's open source and under OFL.
  • 1
    It also applies to CSS icon makers such as the creator of FontAwesome
  • 2
    @Fast-Nop I download the font and serve it myself. I hate how Gfonts block rendering and can take a few seconds on their own, this eliminates 2 and 3, I can't do much about 1 though to enforce legibility, designers like to give users a hard time.
  • 1
    @C0D4 Yeah especially with HTTP/2, that helps, though the download time is still a factor. The question is, WHY. I mean, users don't come for the bling-bling around the content, they come FOR the content.
  • 3
    @Fast-Nop but ma bling bling brings all the bitches!

    Actually I mostly only use Arial, Roboto or OpenSans if I'm using a font, unless there's a reason not to.
    Designers have to be validated in their jobs somehow right?
  • 2
    @C0D4 Arial is one font that I don't like because it's hard to read, e.g. upper case India vs. lower case Lima. Verdana is superb, but designers hate it because it's "boring". Basically, the job of designers is to ruin websites because they still havn't gotten their heads out of the print world.
  • 3
    @Fast-Nop interesting. I'm the other way. Verdana feels to monospace and hard to read for content blocks to me yet Arial I have no issue with.

    But web is just another print surface right??? 😅
    one day they may get it... One very distant day in the future maybe but one day I have hope.
Add Comment