New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Can anyone shed some light on Avante Garde - is it possible to get a webfont licence for it? Can't find one anywhere?
Failing that - has anyone any idea of an alternative with a webfont licence?
Many thanks, Si
We have received many queries about using our typefaces on websites and we want to make sure all of our customers have all the necessary tools to work on a wide range of media. Hence TypeTogether has partnered up with four trusted companies that are able to reliably serve our fonts for your websites and provide you with the necessary technical support. We invite you to check out their website and start enjoying TypeTogether's fonts on the web.
I am having an issue with a font in development, and it is this: The vertical stems are too irregular in width/colour/weight when they are rendered in webbrowsers like Safari or Firefox in OS X. Firefox is marginally better than Safari. A PDF has the same issue, but to a lesser degree. All the stems in question are of exactly the same width. Other fonts like Ariel or other webfonts do not show this issue. I tried both CFF/OTF and TTF, but they both have the same issue. This leads me to think there is some hinting setting I have borked, but OS X does not use hinting, so huh? What can be wrong? I'm working with a UPM of 2048, but I seem to remember making a test in 1000, and that had the same issue.
I'll be grateful for any pointers, hints, puns.
I was surprised after taking a superficial look at the Adobe fonts on Typekit. They appear to be autohinted TTFs converted from CFF by FontForge.
Considering the perceived tone on the TypeCon's webfont panel about how bad-for-the-industry autohinting is, has even Adobe accepted that this is "good enough" and not worth the time and money to build by hand?
My question is about linked webfonts, (not the web-safe installed fonts like Georgia & Verdana). Is it possible to print using them from a browser? I heard Firefox was going to implement this, but have not seen it work yet. Was that functionality intended for naked font linking only (.otf & .ttf but not .woff) or a rumor wholly unfounded?
It has been a while since the fruitless protests against Ikea abandoning Futura.
But never say die! The web gives the power back to us, the Futura-loving people: http://just-another.com/futurizer?q=ikea.com
I just put up the first post of my new blog: Hot Lead. The first one is a little light and breezy, but I plan to get into a lot more detail about what we're doing with the Google Font API, open source fonts, performance, rendering, font technology, and more. Please subscribe and wait for updates.
We had a great launch, and I'm still recovering a bit from all the excitement - and definitely looking forward to relaxing a bit this holiday wekeend. Again, thanks to everyone here at Typophile for supporting the effort in many different ways.
While we are waiting for WOFF support broadly, there are some protective measures available for webfonts to prevent them from being installed locally.
There is a technique of obfuscating the
name table, rendering it unusable as a system font, but fully functional as a webfont. Ethan Dunham of Font Squirrel and Fontspring has led much of the research below, based on some prior work from Peter Bilak of Typotheque and Philip Taylor with his Font Optimizer 
Specifically, these are the modifications for a TrueType font:
In the latest development of web served typography, the World Wide Web Consortium today accepted and published the Web Open Font Format specification. This is an important step in the standardisation of this format, as set out in the charter of the recently establish W3C web font working group.
The most notable and exciting thing about this is that WOFF was jointly submitted to the W3C by the Mozilla Foundation (whose Jonathan Kew developed the format along with Erik van Blokland and Tal Lemming), Opera Software ASA, and Microsoft Corporation. And it isn't often that I use bold italics.
1. The submission documentation.
Elk Grove Village, IL – April 14, 2010 – Ascender Corporation, a leading provider of advanced font products, announced a new web fonts service on its www.AscenderFonts.com site to appeal to web designers and web developers.
Would like to get some professional opinions on Cufón. Specifically, I'm wondering if you see it in a similar light as WOFF. IE: It is a web-only format and can't be installed on a desktop machine. I'm starting to see some designers offering Cufón support in their pro licenses.
So, would you equate the two to be similar? Can you see any downside to Cufón from an IP perspective?
The only downside I can see, is that 1) It is a text format and therefore easy to edit out domain links. 2) It is easily downloaded and installed on your own website. But it is impossible (from what I can tell) to turn back into an OTF. I can already turn a WOFF back into an OTF.
Why or why don't you support Cufón?
For Immediate Release:
Alameda, CA- February 3rd, 2010
Delve Fonts announces its new website has been launched. http://www.delvefonts.com/ To celebrate, the Delve Fonts Typeface Library is 50% off during the month of February. Additionally, the site now features online ordering with instant downloads.
Recent additions to the the collection include: Rieven Uncial by Steven Skaggs, recipient of a TDC² 2010 Certificate of Excellence in Type Design (available 4/10/10), Quara by Delve Withrington, and Cody by Cody Chancellor.
is anywhere a table showing which foundry supports and allows which webfont technology? I couldn't really find anything close to what I mean, so I put together quickly this draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pepa007/Foundries_allowing_web_fonts
Is there something like this already? Or should I publish it and kindly ask you to help me with adding more foundries?