Thanks, but no thanks. Web pages already assume too much about the way that they'll be rendered -- I have pages looking funny when I force a minimum font size so I can actually read them. I know, it's a crazy idea wanting to read web pages. What can I say? I'm weird that way.
I can't imagine allowing custom fonts making this situation any better. I don't want the web to be pixel perfect, I want the end-user to have control over what they see, without sites breaking.
"I want the end-user to have control over what they see."
How, exactly, does this prevent that?
What current user mechanism for control over the web pages will this preempt?
What is the difference between saying "I don't want this page to be in Arial, I want it to be in Tahoma" and "I don't want this page to be ExoticTypeKitFont, I want it to be in Tahoma"?
Read the first paragraph again -- The problem is that pages start breaking when designers make the assumption that things will be pixel perfect. Allowing them to perfectly specify a font, complete with external references, further supports this [incorrect] assumption.
A user who would prefer to see the page's text as quickly as possible rather than to see the text in the font the page author prefers might have trouble expressing that preference with pages that use Typekit's solution. In other words, if the user would prefer to see the text rendered with a font available on the local machine rather than wait for a font to download for Typekit's servers, . . .
More generally, the mentality expressed in the original post (that authors need more control over what the end-user will see) has been bad for end users who want control over what they see without delving into extremely complex details, e.g., the profusion of complexity that is Firefox's about:config.
Comments
Thanks, but no thanks. Web pages already assume too much about the way that they'll be rendered -- I have pages looking funny when I force a minimum font size so I can actually read them. I know, it's a crazy idea wanting to read web pages. What can I say? I'm weird that way.
I can't imagine allowing custom fonts making this situation any better. I don't want the web to be pixel perfect, I want the end-user to have control over what they see, without sites breaking.
"I want the end-user to have control over what they see."
How, exactly, does this prevent that?
What current user mechanism for control over the web pages will this preempt?
What is the difference between saying "I don't want this page to be in Arial, I want it to be in Tahoma" and "I don't want this page to be ExoticTypeKitFont, I want it to be in Tahoma"?
Read the first paragraph again -- The problem is that pages start breaking when designers make the assumption that things will be pixel perfect. Allowing them to perfectly specify a font, complete with external references, further supports this [incorrect] assumption.
Start breaking? This is still no change.
A user who would prefer to see the page's text as quickly as possible rather than to see the text in the font the page author prefers might have trouble expressing that preference with pages that use Typekit's solution. In other words, if the user would prefer to see the text rendered with a font available on the local machine rather than wait for a font to download for Typekit's servers, . . .
More generally, the mentality expressed in the original post (that authors need more control over what the end-user will see) has been bad for end users who want control over what they see without delving into extremely complex details, e.g., the profusion of complexity that is Firefox's about:config.