<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://typophile.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Typophile - Where are the Web 2.0 fonts? - Comments</title>
 <link>http://typophile.com/node/44141</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Where are the Web 2.0 fonts?&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>How about it Adobe? How</title>
 <link>http://typophile.com/node/44141#comment-272300</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;cite&gt;How about it Adobe? How about picking up the slack here and giving a bit back to the Internet community that made you the powerhouse you are today?&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I missed this somehow the first time. But I agree wholeheartedly with Ralf. Further, for that to work, the OS vendors have to actually be interested in bundling your fonts....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But that really doesn&amp;#8217;t solve the problem faced by Web designers. What most of them really want is not just to have a few more good fonts, but to be able to use essentially arbitrary fonts - well, actually, the fonts already being used in the visual identity for the person/group/organization the site is for.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Plus, as we see more mobile devices used for surfing the Web, you get even more vendors in play, and it becomes less practical to bundle gobs of fonts with the device/OS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Which brings us back to font embedding/linking.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Side note: although the Internet may be the engine of Adobe&amp;#8217;s growth today, IMO it&amp;#8217;s not what made Adobe a &amp;#8220;powerhouse.&amp;#8221;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Cheers,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;T&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:49:25 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Thomas Phinney</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 272300 at http://typophile.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>“The solution to Web fonts</title>
 <link>http://typophile.com/node/44141#comment-272237</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8220;The solution to Web fonts isn’t relying on people to have fonts pre-installed, it’s having fonts linked to Web pages.&amp;#8221;&lt;br /&gt;
Replacemnts for the pre-installed, speciallized type for text, are not replaceable by linking, if all one can call is a file name – good luck 2.0!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Cheers!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 04:50:23 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>dberlow</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 272237 at http://typophile.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>How about picking up the</title>
 <link>http://typophile.com/node/44141#comment-272230</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;cite&gt;How about picking up the slack here and giving a bit back to the Internet community that made you the powerhouse you are today?&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Remember this one?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.designbyfire.com/?p=30&quot; title=&quot;http://www.designbyfire.com/?p=30&quot;&gt;http://www.designbyfire.com/?p=30&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even if one of the companies you mentioned would release some fonts for free, not everyone would download them. You would need to bundle them with the operation systems and wait several years before everyone runs the new version. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#8217;s much more likely that coming browser versions will support webfonts and then we don&amp;#8217;t have to care anymore about pre-installed fonts.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:05:43 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ralf Herrmann</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 272230 at http://typophile.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>We’ll start seeing good</title>
 <link>http://typophile.com/node/44141#comment-272156</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;We&amp;#8217;ll start seeing good fonts on the Internet when Mozilla 2 finally supports embedded fonts. Safari 3.1 doesn&amp;#8217;t have influence over Microsoft&amp;#8217;s IE like what FireFox does.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:17:32 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>BaB</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 272156 at http://typophile.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>We’ll never have proper</title>
 <link>http://typophile.com/node/44141#comment-272140</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;cite&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We’ll never have proper web 2.0 fonts until we have the technology to make them look like black, shiny plastic.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;No, no, no. Web 2.0 fonts won’t all look like plastic, they’ll just do some minor thing incapable of generating anything of value every five minutes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;they&amp;#8217;ll have ads embedded in them, probably featuring Flash animation&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:24:26 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>jasonc</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 272140 at http://typophile.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>We’ll never have proper</title>
 <link>http://typophile.com/node/44141#comment-272129</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;cite&gt;We’ll never have proper web 2.0 fonts until we have the technology to make them look like black, shiny plastic.&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;No, no, no. Web 2.0 fonts won’t all look like plastic, they’ll just do some minor thing incapable of generating anything of value every five minutes.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:46:07 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>James Puckett</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 272129 at http://typophile.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>http://www.typophile.com/node</title>
 <link>http://typophile.com/node/44141#comment-272121</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.typophile.com/node/43971&quot; title=&quot;http://www.typophile.com/node/43971&quot;&gt;http://www.typophile.com/node/43971&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The solution to Web fonts isn&amp;#8217;t relying on people to have fonts pre-installed, it&amp;#8217;s having fonts linked to Web pages. The question is, will it be native fonts (already supported by Safari 3.1) or some modified format such as EOT?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Cheers,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;T&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:34:34 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Thomas Phinney</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 272121 at http://typophile.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Perhaps a pipe dream, but</title>
 <link>http://typophile.com/node/44141#comment-272111</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Perhaps a pipe dream, but it&amp;#8217;d be nice if Apple, Microsoft, and the major Linux UI distros got together to share system font licensing. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#8217;m sure to do that would involve major political and legal hurdles.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But it would be nice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, &amp;#8217;web 2.0&amp;#8217; really doesn&amp;#8217;t have much to do with fonts, though it&amp;#8217;s certainly an overused/abused term these days.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:38:56 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>aluminum</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 272111 at http://typophile.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>We’ll never have proper</title>
 <link>http://typophile.com/node/44141#comment-272107</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;We&amp;#8217;ll never have proper web 2.0 fonts until we have the technology to make them look like black, shiny plastic.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:20:54 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>typodermic</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 272107 at http://typophile.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>&gt;they will never be widely</title>
 <link>http://typophile.com/node/44141#comment-272103</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;they will never be widely licensed for distribution.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Why do you say that? To date had one OS maker inquire and I think there are mechanisms in place to satisfy them. The ClearType Collection fonts might never be released under an open-source license, but more than happy to work with anyone who&amp;#8217;s interested in a license.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:08:50 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>sii</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 272103 at http://typophile.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Where are the Web 2.0 fonts?</title>
 <link>http://typophile.com/node/44141</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;OK, I&amp;#8217;ve been hearing about Web 2.0 and AJAX and Ruby on Rails and Amazon web services etc for too long now. And every one of these new sites I view all still use Arial and Verdana and Times and Georgia to display their text. Boring. These are the same fonts that were around at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;amp;q=Internet%20Tidal%20Wave%20memo&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;start of the web&lt;/a&gt; (or very soon after). Microsoft released their suite of core web fonts and that was it. No more progress on the typography front.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#8217;m not saying Microsoft has to step up again. In fact it&amp;#8217;s unlikely they will. They&amp;#8217;ve got some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ascendercorp.com/ctfonts.html&quot;&gt;beautiful new fonts&lt;/a&gt; that shipped with Vista (and to the consternation of the Vista product managers, the latest version of Office as well). But while one can &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=048DC840-14E1-467D-8DCA-19D2A8FD7485&amp;amp;displaylang=en&quot;&gt;get these fonts freely on the web&lt;/a&gt;, they will never be widely licensed for distribution.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But what I don&amp;#8217;t understand is why others haven&amp;#8217;t picked up the slack here. There are some really nice free fonts out there (many of which have been featured on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smashingmagazine.com/category/fonts/&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Smashing Magazine&lt;/a&gt;) that could easily be included in the Firefox distribution—like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kpao.org/2007/12/best-free-fonts.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;these for example&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Or how about Adobe? They have amazing reach with both Flash and Acrobat Reader, and they also have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/type/&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;an amazing library of typefaces&lt;/a&gt;. How about it Adobe? How about picking up the slack here and giving a bit back to the Internet community that made you the powerhouse you are today?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Or Google? They licensed the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ascendercorp.com/pr/pr2007_11_12.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Droid fonts&lt;/a&gt; for their Android phone platform. How about extending use of these fonts to computers as well? They&amp;#8217;ve got plenty of client installs (Google Desktop, Toolbar, Talk, Pack...) they could bundle fonts with.Ah well, I&amp;#8217;m not holding my breath. I&amp;#8217;m still going to use &lt;a href=&quot;http://novemberborn.net/sifr3&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;SIFR&lt;/a&gt; for my designs. And for the love of everything that is beautifully designed, I encourage you all too as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kpao.org/2008/04/where-are-the-web-20-fonts.html&quot;&gt;Originally posted here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://typophile.com/node/44141#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://typophile.com/taxonomy/term/4">General Discussions</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:27:07 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>davidc</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">44141 at http://typophile.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
