
Typekit launches - adamhowell
http://typekit.com/
======
viraptor
I love the idea... unfortunately something is seriously wrong with their
website. They're selling fonts you can use on _other_ websites. I'd expect
that they know a lot about fonts - yet, when you look at their own source:

    
    
        font-family:arial,sans-serif;
    

Why don't they buy at least one really high quality font from (for example)
Linotype? Not even for reselling, but for use on their own website - to show
the difference it can make... Why do they try to sell fonts for websites, but
don't try to blow my mind by using one of ITCs, or Vialog, or something else
for _their own_ main text.

~~~
ThomPete
well my guess is that the fon't is hiding here

<h1 class="tk-bello-pro" style="visibility:hidden"> The easiest way to use
<em>Real Fonts</em> <span>on your website</span> </h1>

the big fat "The easiest way to use Real Fonts on your website" is actually a
real font

~~~
viraptor
I meant the normal body text to be honest. Instead of showing off with one
frame, why not typeset the whole page in one of the fonts? I couldn't find
anything both toned down and "different" in there, but this might come close:
<http://typekit.com/fonts/392> Give it more spacing and you could use it for
"normal" text (or even <http://typekit.com/fonts/129> if they want to stay
with web2.0-ish sans)

~~~
joshuacc
Probably because on Windows most of the fonts they have available would look
blurry at less than 18px tall. This is due to the way font-hinting and anti-
aliasing works (at least in Vista and XP).

------
adamhowell
Jeff, Greg and Ryan (3/4s of Typekit) spent a year redesigning Analytics after
Google bought Measure Map.

Jeff once said that -- using the Analytics APIs they had access to -- Greg and
Ryan basically prototyped a fully working version of Analytics as we know it
today in a/b a month. It then took the remaining 11 months of them working
with Goog engineers, PMs, etc. to get the thing out the door.

They're an amazing team and I'm looking forward to following along w/ the
success of Typekit.

------
qeorge
I really like the idea, but there are some implementation problems I haven't
yet seen addressed. I'm very much in the target market (web designer /
developer), and I'd like very much for this to work, but I just don't see it.

Here's my issues / questions, would be interested in hearing why I'm wrong:

\- The fonts available on typekit aren't the ones I want to use. Without
support for the Linotype / ITC / Adobe fonts, I'm left choosing a font from
what you do offer, and at that point I might as well just choose a free one
and host it myself. Any plans to get the big-name foundries on board?

FWIW, the fonts I most often need this for are the various flavors of
Helvetica, Gotham, Trajan Pro, and Myriad Pro.

\- The main benefit to cufon/sIFR/etc is that it works with all browsers,
specifically those that don't support @font-face. This doesn't solve that
problem. I know typekit falls back to standard fonts, but I can do that.

\- I usually avoid fancy fonts in all but headings and other large elements.
If the text is static its not a big deal to save the text in Photoshop and use
text-indent to replace the plaintext. Dynamic text, like blog post titles, is
a pain in the ass, but cufon / sIFR handles that case well enough.

\- Its one more server and one more fee added to the equation. Furthermore, I
don't have enough confidence in this business model to trust the service to
remain around forever.

------
jsdalton
Why this, as opposed to sIFR, Cufon, or other free techniques that are
currently being used for font replacement? (Honest question.)

~~~
adamhowell
Couple reasons:

1) sIFR, Cufon, image-replacement, etc. each have their own problems. Hard to
setup, can't select the text, tedious to maintain, requires opening Flash CS4,
etc.

2) @font-face is the future, but most paid font foundries refuse to support it
b/c it requires the font file to be linked to on the server. So designers can
legally use free fonts with @font-face but not fonts they've purchsed.

So, Typekit is an attempt to keep the font foundries happy by hosting the font
file and preventing unauthorized downloading, while keeping an eye on ease-of-
use and the future of the web by doing most of the @font-face heavy-lifting.

~~~
endtwist
Another option many people seem to be unaware of is Typeface.js:
<http://typeface.neocracy.org/>

It supports text selection, requires zero thought once it's set up, and works
in every major browser. The only major downside is that you need to convert
each font to typeface.js' JSON font format, which adds a bit of heft.

At the same time of course, I definitely support what Typekit is trying to do,
since most font foundries won't be happy with (m)any other solutions. Too bad
this discounted pricing won't last!

~~~
tptacek
It also probably violates the license of most of the fonts you'd want to use
with it.

------
bombs
It's a pity that to use the fonts I would like to on my single website, I'd
have to sign up for the portfolio plan, which is a reasonable $49.99 for the
first year, but jumping up to $17 a month thereafter.

It's too much for me to justify, when the font could be purchased for $40,
with a license that allowed the use of sIFR.

------
shortformblog
Just dropping in to note Kernest (<http://kernest.com/>), which uses @font-
face as well, but without the Javascript that makes Typekit somewhat
undesirable.

I tried it a few months ago and really liked it:
[http://shortformblog.com/tech/the-importance-of-knowing-
kern...](http://shortformblog.com/tech/the-importance-of-knowing-kernest-
pretty-high-your-move-typekit)

Then I used it in my site redesign, which conveniently used a font Kernest was
already using.

Kernest's weaknesses on the site are offset by its strengths in implementation
and ease of use. Typekit, however, uses javascript for DRM when it isn't
really necessary. Kernest uses a server-side whitelist solution which is much
cleaner to load.

So there's my pitch for Kernest. Typekit seemed cool at first, but the cost
struck me as too high and I'd rather use javascript for functionality, not
design.

------
oliverkofoed
I looked into using @font-face for a project a week or two ago.

I ended up not using it because most fonts (i tried a lot) looks really bad
anti-aliasing turned off; especially at the small (body-text) font sizes.

If only there was a way to tell the browser to only use the fonts if anti-
aliasing was turned on

------
almost
So which browsers and OSs are supported then? Because when I go to browse
fonts I just see a whole load of Arial :p

A search function would be good too, the question I want answered is can I do
my existing design using it.

~~~
appathy
I'm seeing all Arial too. I think their servers are buckling under the load.

------
hkuo
I made a point on their GetSatisfaction feedback page, and will state again,
if they can somehow lay down the cash for one or two of the most-used designer
fonts, say, Helvetica Neue, or Gotham, or Garamond, then designers and web
designers would flock to this service. Additionally, if they were to add a few
of the popular-to-designer bit type faces, such as any of the FFF fonts, then
again, designers would eat that up. Designers just have their standard kit of
faces they turn to.

------
Tichy
I miss information on how it works. Does it render fonts as images? Or maybe
it uses some new HTML 5 feature? Or it requires an ActiveX plugin?

~~~
niels
It uses webfonts: <http://webfonts.info>

~~~
Tichy
Thanks. I guess that means it'll be ready for mass adoptions in five years or
so?

------
lsb
The server's falling down, but that looks beautiful, and quite useful.

~~~
paraschopra
Apparently they guarantee 100% uptime for their service

------
numair
They need to concentrate on making this work in closed environments where the
developer/designer is certain that a compatible browser is being used; it will
be many years before someone can use this for a practical application on the
"open web."

Basically, iPhone-specific websites could make them all of their money, if
they could make it work correctly with the browser (the front page looked
fine, but the font sample page seemed to be a bit off). In fact, I would use
and pay for this myself if it were marketed as an enhanced typography library
for iPhone web apps.

------
Silhouette
There are several outfits trying to do this lately, but I just can't see these
services gaining much traction.

They seem to exist to provide for the whims of font foundries who want to eat
their cake and have it, in a way that no-one else gets. The stock images and
icons on web sites can all be downloaded and used on other sites illegally as
well, yet in practice this hasn't killed either the stock suppliers or the web
in general!

Meanwhile, why would any professional web design firm recommend to their
clients that they commit to writing a blank cheque, indefinitely, after the
design contract is finished, (edit: and relying on a service outside of their
control!), just to keep their site up and running and looking correct?

It's not as if there aren't alternatives for the cases where use of non-web-
safe fonts makes a difference: we've been using custom images, even dynamic
image replacement techniques, since forever. These don't really scale from
occasional uses like headings and pull quotes to the full volume of body text,
but for typical body text sizes using custom fonts is unlikely to gain any
useful improvement anyway; even most pro-grade don't have the kind of hinting
that the Microsoft and Apple standard fonts have.

So I have to wonder, why should the world bend to the font foundries' obsolete
business models, when there are numerous alternative technologies available
that get the same wow factor where it counts, there are many free fonts
available (including a few genuinely of professional quality these days), and
there just isn't much of a compelling selling point from the client's point of
view to signing up for fonts-as-a-service?

~~~
tptacek
Of all the copyright-holding businesses affected by the Internet, it seems to
me the foundries are among the coolest. Their work is rampantly pirated. Only
a tiny fraction of the people using SIFR and image replacement have actually
_licensed_ their type for embedding on the web. They could be hassling
hundreds of sites over this, and they'd be well within their rights to do so.

What I get off this comment is that you think it's "obsolete" to suggest
people should pay for typefaces. But typefaces, even moreso than music and
movies, take years and years of painstaking work to create, and the truly
useful faces are created by a tiny group of people who've dedicated their
lives to the craft.

Why do you oppose paying them?

~~~
Silhouette
> What I get off this comment is that you think it's "obsolete" to suggest
> people should pay for typefaces.

Then, respectfully, you should reread it and then reply to what I actually
wrote.

The point is not that I think fonts should be free. I have personally paid the
equivalent of hundreds of dollars for pro-grade fonts, because I like my work
to look good.

The point is that it's unrealistic for the foundries to expect that instead of
paying for a font and then being able to use it, as we've managed in the
civilised world for decades, we will now all move to a fonts-as-a-service
model, where we will pay ongoing fees for DRM-crippled products served via
third party systems out of our control.

There simply isn't any upside to that for the consumer, other than perhaps
cheaper experiments with different fonts, which is of very limited value
anyway if you're working with a professional agency with access to a large
collection of fonts. The downsides, on the other hand, are potentially severe.

~~~
tptacek
Image replacement is a huge pain in the ass. SIFR will get less compatible as
time goes on, not more (already, I lose SIFR fonts because of ClickToFlash,
and multiple bigcorps are moving to ban flash on corp desktops).

I think what you're paying for is convenience.

~~~
jdowdell
Thomas Ptacek, why the odd unproofed assertion? Seems counter to the
Salesforce, RIM etc trends.

(I appreciate the point you made above about font creators feeling fairly
compensated for use of their creations though, thanks.)

~~~
tptacek
It may _not_ be the case that the industry as a whole is locking out Flash on
their corp desktops, but it definitely is the case that there are security-
conscious F-500's who're getting Flash out of their standard desktop build, so
that their internal machines can't be infected simply by browsing the web.

I can't give examples, for obvious reasons, but you can probably take my word
for this.

------
kevinholesh
Typekit is an excellent service. It allows designers to accomplish some
awesome clean looking designs.

Example: <http://bobulate.com/>

~~~
timb
On that site I can see a sort-of flash of unstyled content as the font loads,
but that doesn't seem to happen on Typekit's own pages.

~~~
kevinholesh
It depends on how fast Typekit's server responds. I'm sure it is extra slow
today. I did some unofficial benchmarks on the service while it was still in
beta:

<http://iloveusability.com/usability-review/typekit/>

It'll be interesting to see how well their servers perform under a heavier
load.

~~~
ErrantX
That's put me off a lot; I'd expect them to be using a service that is very
stable to scale now they have launched.

The fact their own site is intermittent today is worrying.

------
kalendae
Chrome currently does not support @font-face by default so this does not work
on chrome for me unless i run it with a command line option to enable it.

------
jrnkntl
This looks awesome and these launch offers are -way- cheaper than the normal
prices on a per month basis. How long are these gonna last?

~~~
decadentcactus
Hoping it's the duration of your account. I'm tempted to sign up even though I
don't need it, just for the future.

~~~
jrnkntl
Yes, my point exactly :)

------
hackoder
The biggest problem with this is that your own web site/app depends on some
other web site being up. Or am I reading this wrong?

~~~
shortformblog
How many sites have Facebook Connect logins, Disqus comments or tons of
YouTube videos? It's not exactly a new concept.

Though this particular implementation gives me pause, mainly due to its cost
and the way it locks you into a model.

------
noodle
i love the idea, but there's no way i'm going to pay for the service until it
supports IE, at least (i can accept that it doesn't work on chrome and the
like, for now).

i hate IE, but its still a huge chunk of the browser segment.

~~~
halo
It does support IE - IE has supported @font-face for the EOT format since
IE5.5, it was originally a proprietary IE property that has since been
standardised.

~~~
noodle
edit:

nevermind. i misread the statement that displays when you visit the site with
an unsupported browser.

it read in such a way, though, that made me believe that it wasn't supported
with IE. it might help to clarify that, a bit.

