Comments on: Cufón vs. Typeface.js, which one is better?

By: Totalnonsense – The design-gaming-music blog » Archive » Interesting comparison of Cufón vs. Typeface.js http://is.gd/akLAL #web #font #embed

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:56:40 +0000

[...] http://kilianvalkhof.com/2009/javascript/cufon-vs-typefacejs-which-one-is-bet…; [...]

By: fabio

fabio — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:48:09 +0000

Err I guess I should read the rights infos on cufon website first :)

By: fabio

fabio — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:44:29 +0000

great article,
but I do wonder about the rights issue of converting commercial font and packing them on one`s server…

say I owe font x from adobe, does that give me the right to convert it on put on web server? my guess probably not :(

I guess for now one should stick to free fonts

By: Rich Typography Options for the Web « Paul Irish

Rich Typography Options for the Web « Paul Irish — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:37:09 +0000

[...] Typography for the web – NY Web Standards Meetup Cufon vs sIFR vs FLIR Cufon vs Typeface.js – Which one is better? [...]

By: Tom Sramek

Tom Sramek — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:04:01 +0000

Hi guys!
If you need easily implement Cufon into your Wordpress themes I wrote a plugin All-In-One Cufon http://tomsramek.com/plugins/all-in-one-cufon/

By: Már

Már — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:42:16 +0000

It's worth noting that Cufon has an autoDetect option that makes using it a breeze. Cufón.replace('h1, h2, h3, h4, h5', { autoDetect: true }); This will automatically Cufon-ize all headings based on the font-family you specify in your CSS. Only those headings with their font-family set to a known Cufon font - will be replaced. Only downside is, that autoDetect doesn't work in Opera - so that no replacement takes place - which IMO is a nice-enough fallback.

By: Matt Bee

Matt Bee — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:33:33 +0000

Something I learned last night (London Web Standards talk) was that typeface respects ligatures (where 2 letters join together) – which is a bonus for correct display of the font you want to use. That’s got to be a plus for typeface.js

By: Chris Haas

Chris Haas — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:29:57 +0000

Seriously, who’s disabling CSS besides developers? Accessible readers maybe, but they usually have JS disabled anyway so they won’t double up anyway.

By: Unibands

Unibands — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:44:35 +0000

…ok, it didn’t render my example. Can your comments not simply escape angle brackets into their character entities instead of simply taking the whole thing out??! Seems like it should be a pretty standard feature on a website dedicated to web design.

By: Unibands

Unibands — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:38:46 +0000

While I’m all for using different fonts on the web, you have to ask yourself if it is worth the extra effort to do this?

Neither of these methods render text that well. It looks blurry (Firefox 3.5). Also, have you tried disabling CSS? You get a duplicate of EVERY word rendered with this. Not good for some situations.

Also, like you say, you can’t select the text…that’s a bad thing.

I hate flash, but SIFR does do a good job for this at this time of writing.

Another method I use is the plain old IMG tag. Yup. Google indexes image ALT text quite well too so there should be no SEO worries so long as you adhere to the correct methods.

Even if you want to make rendering images as an alternative to text easier, you can simply create a server-side function that takes the text as an argument and outputs an image.

E.g

Hopefully CSS3 will do away with this anyway at some point.