If you want to go a little deeper into forces limiting the use of more exciting/innovative web fonts, the concept of “web safe” fonts is also a contributing factor from web design standpoint. There’s a display issue that can result from using fonts that don’t have the Google seal of approval if you want a site to display correctly in Chrome. Similar issues displaying correctly in mail apps, etc if you choose fonts that aren’t system defaults because the system replaces those fonts with ones it has on hand, if it detects a font it doesn’t know (aka can’t load directly). Safari, Chrome, Mail (OS), Outlook, etc all have default fonts they load that replace fun non-system fonts. This makes it more difficult to incorporate really exciting fonts into web design without comprises that hinder SEO or content accessibility (like text as flat graphic).
Oh so true! I’ve worked on a number of website builds and overhauls/reskins and “web safe” fonts is the default in every conversation. I also enjoy listening to designers and developers get a bit snippy with each other when talking about this!
Makes me think of “regression to the mean”. If you want to appeal to a maximum number of people and affront the minimum, you’ll avoid the extremes, which will create a progressively more narrow spaces of what is considered “not extreme”.
I grew up reading magazines, started a magazine in college and then worked for magazines after college… and then went digital when the internets happened. That period from roughly 1998-2002 when traditional print designers were transitioning to digital led to some bold choices for web designs or newsletters. I think for all of us who started in print, we’ve never quite gotten over, or maybe lost the excitement of, seeing something really graphically stunning. But that also might be because it’s so rare these days.
(I still recall one night/early morning stumble home from my local and stopped to watch a guy put giant posters (posters!)up on scaffolding. It was the coolest thing.)
Loved the article, however, I just learned in design class that the topic in question are typefaces, not fonts. The terms are not interchangeable. Font refers to the attributes (size, weight, etc.) of the typeface. 💜🙂
I remember the desktop publishing revolution in the early to mid 90s and things like the House Industries catalog and Ray Gun magazine being things that you had seek out. Now everything has to work on a phone. When I think of websites that have memorable design both good and bad the Yale School of Art website comes to mind.
Let’s make the internet fun-looking again!
If you want to go a little deeper into forces limiting the use of more exciting/innovative web fonts, the concept of “web safe” fonts is also a contributing factor from web design standpoint. There’s a display issue that can result from using fonts that don’t have the Google seal of approval if you want a site to display correctly in Chrome. Similar issues displaying correctly in mail apps, etc if you choose fonts that aren’t system defaults because the system replaces those fonts with ones it has on hand, if it detects a font it doesn’t know (aka can’t load directly). Safari, Chrome, Mail (OS), Outlook, etc all have default fonts they load that replace fun non-system fonts. This makes it more difficult to incorporate really exciting fonts into web design without comprises that hinder SEO or content accessibility (like text as flat graphic).
Ooh that's interesting, and not a subject I know much about. Thanks for giving me another obscure typeface rabbithole to fall down...!!
Oh so true! I’ve worked on a number of website builds and overhauls/reskins and “web safe” fonts is the default in every conversation. I also enjoy listening to designers and developers get a bit snippy with each other when talking about this!
Makes me think of “regression to the mean”. If you want to appeal to a maximum number of people and affront the minimum, you’ll avoid the extremes, which will create a progressively more narrow spaces of what is considered “not extreme”.
I grew up reading magazines, started a magazine in college and then worked for magazines after college… and then went digital when the internets happened. That period from roughly 1998-2002 when traditional print designers were transitioning to digital led to some bold choices for web designs or newsletters. I think for all of us who started in print, we’ve never quite gotten over, or maybe lost the excitement of, seeing something really graphically stunning. But that also might be because it’s so rare these days.
(I still recall one night/early morning stumble home from my local and stopped to watch a guy put giant posters (posters!)up on scaffolding. It was the coolest thing.)
Loved the article, however, I just learned in design class that the topic in question are typefaces, not fonts. The terms are not interchangeable. Font refers to the attributes (size, weight, etc.) of the typeface. 💜🙂
Hah you are ABSOLUTELY correct -- I addressed this in a footnote.
I remember the desktop publishing revolution in the early to mid 90s and things like the House Industries catalog and Ray Gun magazine being things that you had seek out. Now everything has to work on a phone. When I think of websites that have memorable design both good and bad the Yale School of Art website comes to mind.