Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> We can learn more about prioritising the text in this way by diving deeper into the murky waters of web font loading: in my walkthrough on the subject I mentioned two of the most popular techniques.

His techniques uses javascript, which goes completely behind the earlier point he is making about "typography is as strong as your weakest link". If I have Noscript on, I can't see your text correctly. That's your weakest link right there.

If you choose to disable one of the core technologies of the modern web, you'll just have to take what you can get.

The same "modern web" that mostly fails at doing web for lack of progressive enhancement.

But enough sidetracking, as ekianjo said, using a script to load the font is unnecessarily adding to its fragility and simply fails for those without javascript.

This modern web core technology being a security liability[1], invasive of privacy[2] and the facilitator of modern annoyances that gets in the way of the user, (ads, interstitial space, ...) it is an expected response from the user to disable it or restrict it to the actual domain serving the page.

[1]: http://thehackernews.com/2016/01/javascript-ransomware-malwa... [2]: http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ and http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ and http://evenbettermotherfucking.website/

That's one way to go. You can also take the path of radical simplicity: only include what is absolutely necessary, and what is resilient enough to work in wide situations. To make a tool of the highest quality.

Sometimes a constraint like that can lead you to solutions even better than what you started with.

> only include what is absolutely necessary

Or you can write a robust design that starts with radical simplicity that is at least functional, and then progressively enhance the page with whatever features are currently available. The user shouold at least be left with something usable if the Javascript or CSS or font doesn't load.

This modern trend that tries to pretend that the User Agent will always support various features or that they can simply assume that network errors never happen just makes sites look shoddy and unprofessional.

JavaScript often fails to load due to network congestion or poor connectivity. In those cases, it is important to provide a good user experience with the HTML alone.

One of the key principles of the modern web is that JavaScript is NOT a 'core technology'; it's an added bonus. Please don't make your pages break without it.

And you can choose to not be an asshole and not get downvoted, but you'll just have to take what you deserve.

Nice catch, but I think you're a little too harsh. First of all, the site looks better than most other sites, with js off (I also use noscript). Secondly, one has to ask why js is disabled. The site probably looks as fine as it could in lynx or w3m. A spider can read the semantic markup fine. A screenreader while pronounce the text as well (or poorly) as is.

I think most people realize that there are certain limits to the combination of just html and css -- and that js can be used to change the trade-off between "good" and "perfect".

All that said, I also wish one could simply add a link to a font-file in the <head>-element and be done with it. But as web fonts are an attack vector, the people that run noscript, shouldn't be able to see that webfont either -- unless they take an action to trust the publisher in question (the site/host).

> I also wish one could simply add a link to a font-file in the <head>-element and be done with it.

You know you can do just that, don't you ?[1].

[1]: https://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/using-font-face/

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact