

Svgs are cool, but icon fonts are just 10% of their file size - alz
http://blog.pictonic.co/post/32869817328/svgs-are-cool-but-icon-fonts-are-just-10-of-their

======
tb303
Great dissection, thanks for sharing!

Similarly argued, icon fonts are cool but have x-browser rendering issues,
dependence on webkit for accurate anti-aliasing (currently), require sticking
to a 32x32 grid, and altogether lead to a massive headache for nimble
development. In most cases, especially for new products and low traffic, it's
premature optimization. Github's speakerdeck gives a great rundown of their
experience:

<https://speakerdeck.com/u/jonrohan/p/say-hello-to-octicons>

And note, this is Github, who actually has reason to optimize for >2MM users,
saying the process was is too complex and tedious.

~~~
alz
thank you for your comment, and the link, really interesting points!

------
FireBeyond
SVGs are XML, which can be compressed transparently by the web server using
GZip, which from my reading on the web typically gets around 70-80%
compression on XML files, thus reducing the deficit fairly heavily.

Also, that first comparison chart? "Most browsers don't support the full SVG
featureset" - Firefox 3.1, Chrome 1.0, Safari 3.2?

~~~
alz
here is a followup post comparing gzipped versions:
[http://blog.pictonic.co/post/33163844823/icon-fonts-vs-
svgs-...](http://blog.pictonic.co/post/33163844823/icon-fonts-vs-svgs-part-2)

------
projct
The first graph has the wrong label for the x axis.

