My fears realized.

I think this will become known as "Web 3.Oh my gawd! Who picked that font?" ;-)

Let's come back in a year and see if Ray Larabie, and any other designers who allow their freeware fonts to be used, are elevated to the pantheons of the font gods.

PS no disrespect to Ray, his fonts have their place, just don't think every web page in the “whole freaking world” is that place. ;-)

it looks like they expect the reader to connect the dots on this one, Si :-)

ChrisL

yikes! that cannot be zen!

Zen and the Art of Fartery :-)

ChrisL

Not a "major browser", no protection for commercial fonts, no kerning support, …
But still: a milestone! Both for web designers and the font industry!

I'll bet you in 10 or 15 years the major foundries will be whining about how they underestimated the new market of web fonts.

If I recall Zen and the Art of Archery advocated hitting the target without using your eyes. That must be the key to this as well.

"without using your eyes"

LOL!!! Yes, Grasshopper :-)

ChrisL

Interesting that this was on the news last night...

"Computer Vision Syndrome Becoming More Common"

The answer is apparently "rose tinted glasses" - maybe that's what the font industry needs too ;-)

or a seeing-eye dog :-)

ChrisL

This is going to make a lot of money for type designers who can afford a lawyer, or just write a good cease-and-desist-or-license-my-fonts letter. Just figure out how to get a search engine to pull up every site using your font and start going after all the pirates and all the customers of eBay bootleg font vendors.

Keep in mind that while this is cool, this was in all likelihood done for one reason and one reason only: custom iPhone apps

>This is going to make a lot of money for type designers who can afford a lawyer,

No, this is going to make a lot of money for lawyers who work for type designers.

>it looks like they expect the reader to connect the dots on this one, Si :-)

Chris, that design had me in stitches, fortunately you can download the font no-strings-attached.

>custom iPhone apps

I doubt it, but somone should try the examples on a firmware 2.0 iPhone and share the results.

"I doubt it"

I don't doubt folks will use it for more than that, but at this point, Safari's main purpose in terms of Apple development is the iPhone/iTouch.

Sadly our confidentially promise with those folks won’t let me counter your theory, but maybe over a pint at TypeCon ;-)

Keep in mind that while this is cool, this was in all likelihood done for one reason and one reason only: custom iPhone apps

I think that there’s more to it than that; namely, Apple got sick of waiting for the standards crowd to get something done and took the initiative to craft a solution that will annoy some people, but get the ball rolling. It’s something that Apple is in a unique position to do; if say, Microsoft or Adobe tried this, people would just start screaming “monopolists!” and “embrace and extend!”. Surely custom fonts for iPhone apps is something Apple would like to have, but the reality is that the W3C should have worked this stuff out a long time ago.

Well at least I can comment on that. CSS has theoretically supported this mechanism for like for ever. Hakon Lie (author of CSS) started pushing browser makers to support it. Dave Hyatt who works on WebKit put it in a while back and its worked its way into Safari. I think the whole effort is standards-driven rather than anti-standards.

Thanks for straightening me out…err, clearing that one up, Sii. Maybe I’ll just submit a Mozdev bug request about Firefox not supporting this…

I think you should submit a bug request to Apple about supporting it :)

Can someone remind me where in the Preferences I turn this thing off ?

Typographica: John Gruber, via email, succinctly describes the dilemma:
The fonts you’re allowed to embed legally aren't worth using; the fonts that are worth using aren't embeddable.

So what can we do about it? Provide the fonts worth using!

Yes, there will be ugly MySpace sites which will be unreadable. Yes, there will be websites using commercial fonts without paying. But still: it's a big opportunity for everyone.
If anyone thinks the same I would be very interested in sharing ideas. How would web fonts be licensed? Per user? Per domain? Per domain per year? On demand (per download from the foundry's server)? At which prices? How can commercial fonts be protected (which means: how can we make it a litter harder to get them)?

Let’s come back in a year and see if Ray Larabie, and any other designers who allow their freeware fonts to be used, are elevated to the pantheons of the font gods.

PS no disrespect to Ray, his fonts have their place, just don’t think every web page in the “whole freaking world” is that place. ;-)

Sii, adding a winking emoticon at the end of that statement does nothing to diminish the insulting, discriminatory and divisive nature of it, and the snotty remark you made before it regarding "the pantheons of the font gods". By mentioning Ray Larabie and only Ray Larabie you single him out. Liking or disliking Ray Larabie's free fonts is a matter of personal taste, but on an objective basis that is not the issue for this topic and has no place in this discussion.

The first remark was nothing more than a thinly-veiled put-down of Ray Larabie's merit as a type maker and designer. You then tried to disguise your hubris by saying "...disrespect to Ray...[yada yada yada]."

You did much the same thing to me on the recent CSS thread, singling me and the embedding terms in my EULA out for scrutiny. I abandoned that thread because it was obvious the cabal, on that occasion consisting of you and Adam Twardoch, had decided to sink a hatchet into my back for a minor indescretion on my part.

Kindly stick to the topic at hand when at Typophile and stop making personal attacks on individuals. I am drawing the community's attention to you because I notice you doing it over and over, yet I haven't noticed anyone else in particular making such obvious attacks.

Alternatively, keep on with your hubris and personal attacks, as it only makes you look bad. Don't assume that if Arbo isn't posting much he isn't reading typophile.

Moderators---will one of you please have a word with Simon offline about this. Thankyou.

j a m e s

j a m e s

"Sadly our confidentially promise with those folks won’t let me counter your theory"

oooh! Time to start rumours! ;o)

"Sii, adding a winking emoticon at the end of that statement does nothing to diminish the insulting, discriminatory and divisive nature of it"

Sure it does. ;o)

Ray was likely mentioned as he is often mentioned as the example by the Hakon Lie (one of the 'inventors' of CSS/employed by Opera)

>Ray was likely mentioned as he is often mentioned as the example by the Hakon Lie

Correct.

>Moderators—-will one of you please have a word with Simon offline about this. Thankyou.

If the moderators think I'm out of line they can call me on it right here. If Ray or any of the people I've personally attacked on typophile can contact me off-list if they like.

>Don’t assume that if Arbo isn’t posting much he isn’t reading typophile.

"Arbo" ;-) You know, you can't pick your own "nickname", the community has to pick one for you. ;-)

You know, you can’t pick your own “nickname”

Why, would that be arbotrary?

I'll preface this by saying that I would hardly consider myself a type designer and much less a lawyer;
But I was under the impression, at least in the U.S, that a typeface is not something that can be held under copyright - that is the letter form itself. That what is copyrightable is the "software package" of it's distribution - which could also include metrics and kerning.
Now if a web page is just displaying the letters of a typeface on it's page - without metrics or a packaged means of distribution, then how can this be considered infringement?

billy...for the browser to display a typeface embedded, then it, indeed, has to load the 'software package' to render it.

This would be opposed to uploading an image made with the type...like a JPG or GIF, which would not include the typeface 'software'. Nor would it be type at that point.

Billy if you follow the link you'll see a snippet of CSS code... the font file, in this particular example one of Ray Larabie's excellent fonts, is linked and will be downloaded by the browser...

Ralf>If anyone thinks the same I would be very interested in sharing ideas.

I think that should probably be a focus of discussion.

Ralf>How would web fonts be licensed? Per user? Per domain? Per domain per year? On demand (per download from the foundry’s server)? At which prices?

I really don't have any ideas, all current licenses that allow for traditional embedding, with broad redistribution, assume some level of misuse, but what do you do if the fonts are fully exposed? You had a technique to hide the fonts, which introduces a barrier to misuse. Does this work with Safari’s implementation?

Ralf> How can commercial fonts be protected (which means: how can we make it a litter harder to get them)?

As you probably know we’ve submitted the EOT format to the W3C. That introduces a further barrier, but is certainly not impenetrable. I wonder if there are tables that can be removed from the fonts to make them less usable if extracted?

Larabie fonts are also mentioned in the original article to which Si linked. Si is one of the least mean people I know and I say this as an associate of his as well as a moderator.

The simple truth is that if the web becomes a sea of people using the fonts currently available for use it will be fugly. True there are appropriate uses for many free fonts. There are some very good quality free fonts as well. But, if we are speaking in general terms I fear for what the web will become.

"I fear for what the web will become."

Just think of what happened when Apple and Microsoft unleashed software that could include clip art as well as the clipart and bunches of fonts with limited uses a few years back. Soon, we were getting god-awful emails and wordprocessing files from wannabe "artists" showing us every font and piece of clip art at ther disposal! Not a pretty sight.

ChrisL

Thanks Tiffany,

The comment I made about what this would do to the reputation of freeware type designers associated with this effort (either by choice or not) was an honest one. I can see things going in a number of directions for them, they could become heroes of the new font-enabled Web, or they could find themselves unjustly blamed for the fugly – I’ll coin the phrase “Vinnification” :-( - Comic Sans is still a very popular font with the masses, even though through no fault of his own, Vinnie gets flack for it. Equally until Firefox and IE jump on the bandwagon nothing may happen. Likewise if mainstream commercial font vendors can find a way to be involved then it won’t be an issue.

The timing, with respect to the Business of Type event couldn’t be better, rather than focus purely on the issues of enforcement and risk we can explore ways for font makers to benefit from this technology.

In addition the "PS" comment about Ray’s fonts having their place, was an honest effort to counter any perception that I was anti-Ray in my earlier post. I know various Microsoft games groups use his fonts, and I was lucky enough to be able to license one of his fonts (through an agent) for redistribution in Halo 3.

Thanks very much for defending me, James. I really appreciate it.

Freeware fonts are more likely to be used in lowbrow design hence I'm used to being a typographical punching bag. The more widely fonts are distributed, the more likely it is that they'll be misused. Young font designers, take heed: don't release freeware fonts unless you don't mind a future career as whipping boy/girl. Even if you make great fonts, you'll be remembered for fonts misused. I guess Vincent Connare knows how that goes. Praise for Magpie will always be overshadowed by anti-Comic Sans sentiment.

About the ugly fonts:

The first font in the example at the beginning of this thread is Primer Apples which was created for a German teacher at no charge based on drawings she had sent me. The dashed lines are supposed to look casual and have square ends. I don't know how such a font could be made much more beautiful but in the right context I think it looks fine. If Primer Apples was the only headline font in the above example and the theme was school, sewing or scrapbooking it would look alright.

Prime Minister of Canada isn't so bad. I looks a little "autotraced" but I think it looks inky and appropriate at about 12 points in print. In the context you've shown, it's been tracked wide and seems to have a fake bold applied to it. In proper use, it comes off as 1960s style casual pen & ink lettering.

Sexsmith is just cute. The early version was pretty weak but I've seen it used in beautiful ways over the years. In a context where cuteness is required, Sexsmith does its job well. Unfortunately, many freeware font sites still carry the old version.

Vahika was created as a by-product of a FontLab tutorial and yeah, it pretty much blows goats. You'd never guess that someone would use it for paragraph text but there it is.

Many creators of web font technology have contacted me over the years. True Font Family is the best one I've seen. It works right now with current browser technology and anyone capable of basic HTML/CSS coding can handle it. It works right now with no plugins. I don't know if it would be suitable for text but it seems to work well in headlines. There's an iGoogle app available as well.

Thanks for chipping in Ray, and please accept my apologies for any unintended offense.

One question, does the W3C/Safari mechanism meet with your approval? If so what's the feeling about readme.txt files being separated from raw fonts posted on the Web? I would have thought that would be a major problem for many freeware and open-source font designers?

Cheers, Si

But, if we are speaking in general terms I fear for what the web will become.

I don't. The web already has some nasty features: Animated GIFs, the Marquee tag, the blink tag, ...
But just because they are there, doesn't mean they will be used all the time. At least not on professional websites. They are used on a Harry Potter fan site of a teenager. And this kid will be very happy to set the text in the Harry Potter free font. But that doesn't mean it will be used on Typophile. ;-)

You had a technique to hide the fonts, which introduces a barrier to misuse. Does this work with Safari’s implementation?

It does. In my example there is no public URL for the font file itself. The font is only delivered (from the foundry website) after an authenticated request from an external (i.e. the client's) website. So no one can just look into the soure code and download the font. But in the end, the full font file is delivered to every browser. So of course it IS possible to get the font. And this will always be the case. Whether the font will be extracted from a browser cache, from the RAM or from a EOT-file. There is no bullet-proof protection. We all know this sort of discussion from the music industry, so we can learn from their mistakes. I think we shouldn't embrace the possibilities in this new and huge market as soon as possible. There are millions of websites out there and I am pretty sure that web designers will not hesitate to buy web licenses. We just need to figure out the right models and conditions.

>>I wonder if there are tables that can be removed from the fonts to make them less usable if extracted?
<<

This is brilliant.
I could imagine browsers making use of fonts without using the OS/2 table (just use the brute force head.Ymax and head.min values to do layout), yet removing that table would make the font all but useless when installed. Depending on how the glyphs are rendered, you might also be able to do a similar trick with the maxp table

>I think we shouldn’t embrace the possibilities in this new and huge market as soon as possible.

I think you're right, clock is ticking. I bought this to the community's attention at TypeCon Boston, by TypeCon Buffalo we may be too late?

>We just need to figure out the right models and conditions.

Any chance you can make it to Seattle on Apr 4th? ;-)

We just need to figure out the right models and conditions.

One could always host the fonts on his own server, allow clients to link to those as opposed to hosting them, and charge a per-connection rate. It’s not an easy option for indie foundries who can’t deal with the server stuff, but the big vendors could probably pull it off. And when really high-traffic sites scoff at royalties, they can just be pushed to commission new designs outright…

@Typodermic: Yes. I agree. Context is very important when using ANY (freeware or otherwise) FONT.

@Ralf: True. True. Just because bells and whistles are available doesn't mean we need to use and/or see them in our daily surf n' turf.

>>
There are millions of websites out there and I am pretty sure that web designers will not hesitate to buy web licenses. We just need to figure out the right models and conditions.
<<

Hear hear!
[despite my previous comment, where I was tempted by the technical issue to be solved] I think Ralf's probably right, that the type industry could benefit from the failures of the music industry in DRM. This is the ideal time to look forward at different models of revenue streams (I know, easy for me to say.)
In the end, though, it'd be the Web designer's customers paying for the font license, right? Whoever owns the server would pay. I could see this working, with a few kinks worked out. Perhaps the license could be based on a yearly subscription, or maybe even a per X number of unique visitors model.

Jason C

@James: I wondered about that myself. With some foundries re-considering their EULAs to include web use why not just allow usage on the web via linking through the foundries themselves? Or would that be problematic too?

>Or would that be problematic too?

The foundries already post their fonts on Web servers - you just need to hand over your credit card details to get them. So security on the server is within the realm of possibility. But as Ralf said...

"Whether the font will be extracted from a browser cache, from the RAM or from a EOT-file. There is no bullet-proof protection."

The fonts end up on the unlicensed Web surfing end-users machine, where they can get them with no effort (or trivial effort) and that's where the foundries concerns kick in, and its a this point the concerns need to be overcome with the promise of significant revenue.

>>
why not just allow usage on the web via linking through the foundries themselves? Or would that be problematic too?
<<

well, there could be complications, certainly. For instance, the web designer and their clients would then be dependent on the foundry's server, so if the foundry's server went down, the client's site wouldn't show the font. Also, the web client's traffic would be "inherited" by the foundry, who's server would use some of it's own bandwidth to provide the font (although I think that's in the noise, presumably the foundry would use some of it's profit to increase their own bandwidth.)

jason C

Right. I misunderstood that. :^/

I could imagine browsers making use of fonts without using the OS/2 table (just use the brute force head.Ymax and head.min values to do layout), yet removing that table would make the font all but useless when installed.

I wouln't be suprised if something like this would already work with Apple's implementation.

> One question, does the W3C/Safari mechanism meet with your approval? If so what’s the feeling about readme.txt files being separated from raw fonts posted on the Web? I would have thought that would be a major problem for many freeware and open-source font designers?

I'm not sure yet. When a revenue model becomes apparent to me it might be more obvious. I have some clients who I've allowed free access to Typodermic fonts for similar use in exchange for displaying the original font names to the user hopefully increasing brand recognition. When it comes to my freeware fonts, I'm more reluctant to allow them to be used that way. Brand recognition for Larabie Fonts typefaces is worth about zero dollars or less.

@ aluminum, sil:
If the "software product" is uploaded and used by the client's machine to render a web page, then who exactly is breaking copyright? I guess to put in other terms, if I upload a copy of Photoshop to your machine and you start using it who is responsible?
There are two acts of infringement I can see - the unauthorized use of a copyright work and the distribution of that work.

It would seem silly to go after the users, for one it's bad for business. But also it would be trivial to circumvent. Ie. if I design a web page with 'officina', I could just make a script that removes the metrics and repackage it as 'myCrappyOfficinaRipoff.ttf' and upload that to the clients browser.(I'm sure most of the free font pages are full of junk like this.) Regardless, I would think at that point that the user is no longer in violation.

Which would take us to distribution, which in this case is the graphic designer (or non-designer if you're going after someone's Myspace page). Obviously we would want good, ethical designers paying for the fonts they use; but the whole problem is these designers are not paying (or maybe type designers placing an unrealistic value on the wrong clients - I guess that's another topic). So if you are looking to get money out of these people that you believe have unfairly benefited from your work and they refuse to pay you'd have to have some kind of regulatory means of acquisition. You could setup an association of "licensed designers" and take fees from them, but the idea of licensing designers sounds pretty gross.

So if you can't get money from the designers you could go after the application publishers that enable the use of your work - Adobe, Apple, Microsoft. They could put a "font tax" on their products, but then if a designer is not going to pay for a font there's a good chance they'll use a pirated copy of InDesign. And who would receive this tax collected? Official type foundries? What about the individual designer? Then you have to determine value of one font versus the next, what a mess.
You could put a tax on the hardware makers, even the most unscrupulous designer is probably buying their computer legally unless they are knocking off old ladies. Isn't this what the music industry did? But still you'd have to distribute that money which would seem the difficult part.

What was the point of this post? I forgot - Sorry for some rambling I'm just thinking out loud. I certainly don't mean to insult the work of type designers, it's quite the specialty - I guess the hard part id figuring out where to collect.

>I wouln’t be suprised if something like this would already work with Apple’s implementation.

Yep, it's surprising how much you can hack out of a font and still get it to work. For example the Zune fonts have no "post" table ;-) - but without the browser makers being on board the font would likely end up getting rejected.

In addition if foundries were to require subsetting and provided a subsetting tool with Web-distribution licensed fonts they could include some of this table removing technology too.

Billy, I'm not sure I follow your example but if you upload a font to a server, and make it available to end-users then the server owner is liable, just like any warez site owner that allows that. The foundry would send you (if they can find you) and the server owner a cease and desist.

The fonts end up on the unlicensed Web surfing end-users machine, where they can get them with no effort (or trivial effort)…

Getting fonts for free is already pretty trivial. Especially compared to tracking down web sites using different weights of a family and downloading all of the fonts. What the font industry needs to do is monetize web fonts before someone else does it and covers the whole system with business method patents.

>Getting fonts for free is already pretty trivial.

I think this is different, I'm thinking more of the passive case where the fonts end up on the users machine with no intervention from the user. But I know what you're saying about "easier ways to pirate" - but so far the industry hasn't opted for the "let's post everything on the web and use the honor system" approach.

Ray>I’m not sure yet.

Thanks for the honest response.

Cheers, Si

Two quick notes on the readme.txt accompanying the freeware/open source font before someone flames me...

1. Hakon Lie proposed the use of .zip as a container, that way the readme could be contained and eliminate the issue, (providing the EULA allowed intact redistribution)

2. OFL at least seems to consider this type of redistribution "embedding" - I'm not entirely convinced, but if they don’t see it as an issue, neither should I.

@ sil, Sorry my example was a bit confusing. My point was that if a letter form is non-copyrightable, and that only the "software package" is - then my creation "myCrappyOfficinaRipoff.ttf" would in fact be a separate work in it's own right and subject to the copyright that I determine for it. I could upload this to any server I want because it is indeed my creation. A program on a warez server would be different because that is someone else's product being hosted.

Billy, yep that has been a concern around web fonts, that to circumvent licenses people might strip (c) strings change the names etc., but foundries have been successful in having these removed from warez sites too.

Tiffany: Si is one of the least mean people I know and I say this as an associate of his as well as a moderator.

I don't know Sii personally, I only know him by the things he says at Typophile. From what I see of Sii at Typophile, he does not appear to be a nice person. Why is it, Tiffany, that I notice this about Sii, but I don't notice the same trait in you or Chris or William or John Hudson or Ricardo, or many other well-behaved members?

There must be something in that, but I am not going to hang around to witness the denial of it. Not by you or anybody else.

You cannot tell me what I see. You cannot deny reality. It will bite you back in the bum one day. Truth is worth more than pride. Truth cannot be denied.

Sii attacked me personally not so long ago on the first thread dealing with CSS web font embedding. He did so unopposed, with impunity.

As usual typophile's cabal members are supporting each other. Miss Giggles is usually far out of her depth, but she is right when she accuses you all of what I am accusing you of--- being a cabal, 20 or more of you ganging up on one person and simply covering each other's arses. Some time ago the member named CuriousType tried to put it to Typophilers that an alarming amount of snarkiness and poison flies around these boards. He was right, but you all held ranks and denied it. You are doing exactly the same thing now. That's what cabals do. A cabal is oligarchic by nature. A self-sustaining tyranny.

Larabie fonts are also mentioned in the original article to which Si linked.

And that's supposed to be some kind of precedent to follow? Ray is a member here and every other Typophile member owes it to him to not follow the example set by that article. Put yourselves in Ray's shoes and try to imagine how it would feel to be him.

aluminium: Ray was likely mentioned as he is often mentioned as the example by the Hakon Lie (one of the ’inventors’ of CSS/employed by Opera)

That's no excuse to continue doing the same thing here, on this thread.

This is where it ends.

Sii: Thanks for chipping in Ray, and please accept my apologies for any unintended offense.

Better. Much better. It's about time you learned to apologise. Thankyou for listening.

j a m e s

Sii: If the moderators think I’m out of line they can call me on it right here...

The mods *do not* call you on it right here Sii because they support you as a routine matter of Typophile's political policy. The reason I requested they talk to you offline was to avoid further topic drift and derailment of this thread.

j a m e s

Jim Rimmer, for example, gave up on Typophile because of the snottiness of its denizens.

It's true. Ask him if you don't believe me.

j a m e s

Tiffany: But, if we are speaking in general terms I fear for what the web will become.

That's why I spend as little time looking at the web as possible. It has always been ugly, and embedding ugly free fonts on web pages will probably make it uglier.

The cause of the ugliness lies principally with the people who create web pages. Bad free fonts encourage them, but there is such a thing as good aesthetic judgement and good taste. Around 1995 when the web got popular and became very commercial, untold numbers of fools suddenly decided they were going to be graphic designers. If only they were qualified with aesthetic prowess.

j a m e s

Sii: In addition the “PS” comment about Ray’s fonts having their place, was an honest effort to counter any perception that I was anti-Ray in my earlier post. I know various Microsoft games groups use his fonts, and I was lucky enough to be able to license one of his fonts (through an agent) for redistribution in Halo 3.

Okay. Thanks for clarifying.

j a m e s

James...I think you're too serious for the internet. ;o)

What exactly do you mean by “no kerning support”? Did you refer only to Web fonts (sic) and not to ordinary text in Web pages?

—
Joe Clark
http://joeclark.org/

3.1 doesn't seem to apply kerning on the font I tried (old school TTF with kern table) - off-topic - this freaked me out...

http://forums.macnn.com/84/mac-os-x-archives/191267/kern_protection_fail...

...but it turned out to be non font related.

I call out everyone who I feel is being rude. Maybe my rude monitor isn't turned tight enough. There are a few people that I simply ignore because I think they are proof of bipedal ignoramuses. But I knew Si meant no harm. He came out and corrected himself. Ray understood. End of story for me.

I do not hesitate to stand up for people I know. Especially if I feel they are being misunderstood. I've done my best and that is all I can do.

So that is why you have been ignoring me, Tiff :-)

Sheeeesh, and I don't even own a bicycle ;-)

ChrisL

James, I respect you, but you're taking Si's comments far too seriously. I'm sure if you contacted him directly after you felt offended that he would have been happy to put his comments into context and probably even apologize for any insensitivity. But instead you've accused him in the public square for something that most would argue was your own misinterpretation.

I am sorry to hear Jim Rimmer avoids Typophile because he felt offended. I think that may be indicative of an unfamiliarity with online communication that is often suffered by older users. Not only is talk on the web (unfortunately) less genteel, but the poster's age, experience, tone, and demeanor aren't immediately apparent like they are in the real world. This makes giving people the benefit of the doubt all the more important. Ask for clarification before accusation. Assume the best in people and you'll get it.

James, I don't agree that Typophile is run by a cabal. As any other on-line community, Typophile benefits from the "crowd effect". This means, Typophile is not controlled by just a few people as you seem to think, but by the masses, all of us members. We're all free to express our views, and the moderators are here to help in case someone gets way out of line. But even them, the moderators, are not immune to criticism, and we, the non-moderators, have call them to the stand on other occasions. We all have good days and bad days, and sometimes we wished we hadn't said something, or wished we could have said it in a different way. I'm sure that regular contributors gain from the experiences on past threads that didn't go the way they expected, and have that in mind before posting the next reply. At least I do. You also have to keep in mind that this medium can't communicate all the original emotions that went into the reply (which is actually good, in some cases!). So, it's possible that you interpreted Simon's post in a way that he didn't intend to.

Anyways, all in all I think that a lot of the friction around here is caused by the fact that we're not interacting face-to-face, and because very few know each other personally. If everyone attended to type conferences and spent some time socializing, some discussions around here would probably have a less harsher tone.

Worse that poorly spaced Arial? Worse than (the execrable) Comic Sans?

And the type community is against typographic diversity on the web?

C'mon!

I clearly remember Roger Black declaring, at Type '90, that by the year 2000 everybody would have their favourite font. What I don't think any of us realised then was that it would one or other of the tiny Microsoft core set: Verdana or Tahoma. But, back then, few of us saw the web coming...

Thank goodness we seem to be living through another typographical renaissance (perhaps we should call this 'the Latin type renaissance' - referring to the powerhouse of Southern European and Latin American type designers who seem to be driving it, rather than the Latin alphabet). But I wonder how the fantastic and prolific creations of all these independent type designers and type houses has a chance given the monolithic effect of a type-constrained web.

Have none of you had a client who wants to use Verdana in print, because that's what is used on their website? If I had a glyph for each time that has happened... I'd probably now be in unicode.

But what about legibility? Seeing as reading glasses recently caught up with me, with a vengeance, I have to say I can't read anything on the web now anyway, without pushing 'Make Text Bigger' several times, at least (the days of 7pt addresses on my business cards consigned to a now cringe-worthy past). In any case, Arial renders so badly - and looks so dreadful - at almost every size - and so many people use it - that the idea of Apple unleashing a deluge of unreadability is ridiculuous. These days I like my type big, and wonder why more webdesigners aren't using headlines and decent sized standfirst. And at 24pt or above, at 72dpi, I can cope with the vagaries of anti-aliasing. What I can't cope with is typographic blandness. (And if type on screen is so bad, how come I lust to own at least half of the faces shown on this site's 'best of...' lists?)

James, thanks for joining typophile!

I don’t think you’ll find anyone here who’s not bored with Verdana and Georgia, and you’ll find plenty of people who don’t like the way Helvetica or Arial renders on their iPhone. But which freeware fonts (assuming their designers allow them to be used under this scheme) do you consider an improvement in the legibility department? Which ones would you like to see used on the Web sites you commonly visit for continuous text? Which freeware font would you use to read a site like Typophile?

I actually kind of like using Verdana in print. I’m too pretentious to use it for a paying gig, but almost all of my research materials are now formatted in Verdana because it’s easy to read at a range of sizes in print or on screen.

I'm not bored with Georgia.

Not even a little bit? ;-)

Me either, Kent! I guess all I ask of it is clean reading and it does that pretty darn well!

ChrisL

Which kind of comes back to Miguel's question/joke...

>Can someone remind me where in the Preferences I turn this thing off ?

I didn't see an off-switch, maybe it's there if not we need someone with influence like John Gruber to ask Apple to add one.

"I didn’t see an off-switch"

More like an emergency ejection switch!

ChrisL

James, I agree that a huge amount of vitriol surges through Typophile from time to time. It isn't good, but it may be the price we pay for having a rich fast free and deeply helpful resource. For me it is utterly worth it. For Jim it was not. I too have talked to him about that ( in person which was very very nice indeed ) and I encouraged him to come back. I think if you feel know what you need to know to do what you are doing ( he does ) the draw to typophile may be less as well. That is unless you want to try to promote an idea or two!

About Moderating: As a moderator I am sure I don't find or intervene in all the vitriol that goes by, but when I do and it seems excessive I usually encourage folk to keep it nicer. But it has to be a bit protracted and really I can't MAKE THEM. Further, unless somebody is making personal accusations or insults ( as opposed to insulting their work ) I/we don't come down like a ton of bricks. And yes, unfortunately that has happened.

There are a lot of good reasons to be nice! My favorite being that it helps ideas be exchanged more smoothly. This is happily enough for lots of people. However paradoxically enough it is a respect for the free flow of ideas that also stops us from not MAKING them stop even if they are not being 100% nice. And actually I don't think Typophile would be as useful without a candor that might feel cutting to some some of the time.

So about what Si wrote: I realize that what Si wrote looked very personal to you but I actually think his real concern was aesthetic which he has every right to. These are different things.

Another aspect to consider is a kind of human adaptation/weakness. If you know somebody and respect them and have seen their posts be helpful again and again and again it is possible that your sense of what's right, fair, nice, etc when it comes to their posts is shifted a bit. You may give them more benefit of the doubt. It's not ideal but it's human and no doubt this is even adaptive to a degree. In my case I am sure you fall into that category, so as you see it works both ways. Not that that should matter. So as I say when it comes to moderating I try hard to put that aside in the interests of fairness but I can't be sure I or anybody else succeeds. In fact the reverse. Knowing you will fail isn't an excuse for not trying. Instead it all the more reason for doing your best. I promise to keep doing that.

I am happy to talk with you or any Typophiler about this further and I am interested in fairness and in recognizing my and our failings. Here or on IM or email or whatever.

Typophile’s political policy This is fiction. Maybe we should be that organized ( or maybe not! ) but the reality is that we are not. What you see is a unconnected pattern of individual responses. You may not agree with the pattern. And you don't have to be silent about it. But that's what it is - a pattern- not a a policy.

Anyway, I do very much hope you hang around!

Let's keep talking about the embedding...

I don't think locking things down is a viable or desirable option. Okay maybe personally it is...

And while the interweb* may get uglier for a time while people learn how to use the tool it may be a great thing eventually - but not if the Type industry doesn't work to create a mechanism to take advantage of this catastrophe/opportunity that includes kerning! Sadly I don't have one in mind.

This is happening for a reason which is that if you want substantial control over the look of your text you have to opt for a display layer in flash and a searchable layer in HTML. No?

Since ring tones are being sold (Licensed) with songs maybe fonts could be too. What do you think?

* What do you call it these days any way?

Wow, I leave for a while and look what happens.* Anyway, back to Safari.

I like aluminum's theory, but I suspect that it's not as contained as that. I think it's just the next step. Rich content on the web has always been a goal, with mixed results, and being able to use a broad palette of fonts on 'live' web content just makes sense (in terms of technological development). Preventing use of 'bad' fonts has never stopped people from designing dreck on the web, so allowing them will not change anything. Those whose medium is crap will still be crap, regardless of how many varieties they have on hand.

The music industry has finally turned the barge around and is now embracing digital content (see Rock Band's 6 million song downloads) but only after being essentially overrun by consumers who decided that they would get their content the way they want to, whether the industry came along or not. The type industry is going to have to experience this as well. The structure and relationship of type vendors/makers and the consumer is a model based on old technologies that empowered the supplier over the user. The web runs counter to that, particularly when it comes to digital content. Period.

I think Si is right: those who go for the free/super-cheap fonts model will become, in a way, font gods on the web. Look at Chank! It's not a comment on quality, just a fact. People want it fast and cheap (free) on the web, end of story. Type makers are in the unfortunate position of being practically unknown, which makes the piracy worse, as most people assume A) it's very easy, or B) fonts are made by huge monolithic corporations only. It eases their minds as they steal from type designers. But if they'll do it with music, they'll do it with type.

I am not saying that I want to see type designers and vendors get bludgeoned by technology, nor do I think this whole thing will sort itself out in a clean, desirable, or profitable manner. But it will sort itself out no matter what, and we will all have to deal with it. I was lucky enough to skip the early days of digital type, which I heard were a mess as well. I gather than type distribution has been a mess since day one. Then add the web to that. People are empowered by the web, for better or worse, and Apple's just doing what any smart tech company should do: keeping up with change, or at least preparing for it.

Perhaps the real solution is updating the sales model. Maybe use free web-friendly fonts to draw the users? Or distribute fonts to key websites in exchange for some ad space/attribution? In reality, most users will not use fonts that are illegible, and most web designers will stick to what works. This problem is the start of big changes, but I'm not sure that Safari is going to trigger any real problems. Not that many people use it outside of the iPhone (though I do).

It would be nice if there were an easy way to display a chosen typeface without the user needing it. I bet one day computers will be able to do calculations on the fly to allow something akin to that. But maybe we'll have designed the perfect typeface and we'll all just be using that...

; )

Boy, I sure can blather on about this.

*A joke. I have no influence on Typophile.

James;
I believe I am as far removed from the group that moderates and controls Typophile as possible. But I also know Si, and I support everything Tiffany said about him. Although I could easily detect the humor and sarcasm in his post, I applaud his effort to apologize for any unintentional offense.

Also, although this forum has seen it's share of flame and venom, it is tame and polite compared to nearly every other forum of this type that I've seen on the web. It's a very large community now, so I expect that every once in a while, some ugliness could crop up - that can't be helped. But by comparison, Typophile is a pretty friendly place to hang out.

Jason C

What if this was limited to h1,h2,h3,h4,h5... tags. IE for display use only. Less griping?

Also, I wonder if the font couldn't be protected or at least be buried under a server side scripting language such as php.

I think this is an opportunity. Web typography now has an even stronger place at the table, just as it does in print. Nobody is stopping people from using bad type badly, or even good type badly in print. But with that as the backdrop, print with fine typography shines even brighter. If there is a raft of stinky type on the web, how much more will people visit the tasteful ones.

R

"What if this was limited to h1,h2,h3,h4,h5... tags. IE for display use only. Less griping?"

That would lead to the ignorant just using more non-semantic markup which would lead to even more griping. ;o)

What if IE and other noncompliant browsers would get fixed?

ChrisL

«What if IE and other noncompliant browsers would get fixed?»

I have a smashing deal especially for you. It’s a cozy little tower (324 m) in the centre of gay Paris, built by a guy named Eiffel. I’m selling it really cheap, too.

:-)

LOL!

ChrisL

Randy: PHP can create images dynamically containing whatever text you'd like, in the typeface of your choice. Images have drawbacks though.

No kerning for one - yes?

@Oisín: I'm interested! ;^)

What if IE and other noncompliant browsers would get fixed?

IE 8 seems to be leaning in that direction. It seems that someone at Microsoft figured out that not deliberately screwing over your own customers actually generates revenue and now the rest of the company is catching up.

Randy: PHP can create images dynamically containing whatever text you’d like, in the typeface of your choice. Images have drawbacks though.

I hear you, but that isn't what I meant. What I'm suggesting is that it might be possible to have a php file as a gate keeper for the typeface file, allowing it to be rendered only on a website hosted on the same server. In that way, you'd prevent someone from direct linking your font and redistributing it (or at least you'd make it harder). The idea comes from SIFR which has similar issues. But it's possible to write a lock in the SWF that requires a key to be passed from the site requesting the flash. Uncrackable, no. But it can prevent casual direct linking of SIFR flash movies.

In this case instead of linking to font.ttf in the css you'd link to font.php (similar to php image rotation scripts). The php would in turn write the ttf, but only if a particular variable was set. Such as via a cookie earlier. I am no php expert, so cookies are probably not the desired or elegant way to do it. But it seems like something like this could work.

R

It sounds crackable but not casually. Maybe you should build it! Maybe it could be made very very hard to crack...

Maybe you should build it! Maybe it could be made very very hard to crack...

I already did this last year:
http://www.typophile.com/node/38534

It is built in a way so that the font can be requested only from one specific site. But like I said before: No matter how you disguise the font on the server, in the end the full font file is downloaded to EVERY user accessing this (authorized) site. It will always be possible to catch the font at this point and there is nothing we can do about it.
But maybe a mix of several features would do it. I like the idea of stripping some tables, so the font would work in the browser but the operating system would refuse to install it. Maybe someone could play around with that idea and see if this already works.

There is a problem with request verification: it’s easy to spoof. There’s already a Firefox plugin that does it to grant free access to sites like The Wall Street Journal, which give free access to links from Digg or Google News. The real upside to licensing embedded fonts from one’s own server is that it makes it really easy to spot people who use a font and did not pay to embed it; in this case the pirate would not simply be in violation of a EULA, he would be making copyrighted software available, which can lead to a hefty civil judgement.

James, maybe that's precisely how we should do it then....

Get a group of good lawyers together and say "here's a list of 2000 sites that have illegally used my fonts, have fun, keep 50%". I have they'd be worth the investment haha.

Remember though, with fonts the same thing as with high quality images happens. You can restrict access to the file initially, but after that it's in the wild. Think about stock photo sites. They give low res previews, and then later after purchasing you can download massively huge high quality files. The font selling model is virtually identical.

So the question then becomes the value of putting up fonts for free access like putting up images for free access on other sites. I have one part of a font that given the recent happenings in Safari I might post for others to link to in this manner. I can't imagine that many people using it, but I might use the .php method to capture which sites are using it, see just how it goes, if any would be interested in the results.

«El futuro es una línea tan fina que apenas nos damos cuenta de pintarla nosotros mismos». (La Luz Oscura, por Javier Guerrero)

Sii wrote:

I didn’t see an off-switch, maybe it’s there

I read through the configuration options in the WebKit source code, there is no hidden preference to turn webfonts off.

Jens.

For future reference About the Safari 3.1 Update.

"...there is no hidden preference to turn webfonts off"
Safari's next move, I predict, is to get rid of that pesky url thingy and simply send us straight to the web site
Apple 'thinks' we want to go to. This will be followed by an IE upgrade that follows the same path, except MS sends us to the site MS thinks we should to go to. Obey, and the web will look much better, revolt and you'll see nothing but arial for the rest of your miserable san serif life. ;)

Cheers!

But David, first MS will have a bouncing paperclip jump up and say, "Hey! it looks like you want to visit the Shop-til-ya-Drop site so I am just goin to take you there so happily :-)"

ChrisL

Sii wrote: "I didn’t see an off-switch, maybe it’s there."

But Clippy sez:

Which web sites does Mr Jobs frequent? If we can convince a few of these to use a few lower quality freeware fonts then my money is that Safari 3.11 will hit the streets with an off switch within 3.11 days.

BMW, Audi, Turtlenecks-R-Us :-)

ChrisL

I was thinking... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hodgman , http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/ , http://daringfireball.net/

I'm starting to like this plan. Miguel & Tom, would anyone have a problem if someone were to make a "Fake Apple Myriad" to post on http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/ ?

LOL!!!

ChrisL

I did a little test and found that Safari 3.1 does not honor embedding bits. I created a test TrueType font with embedding set to the most restrictive setting and the Safari happily displayed the font anyway. Perhaps Apple does not consider such fonts to be embedded.

Also, I haven't been able to figure out where the font is cached locally (assuming it is). Perhaps the file is renamed the way QuickTime movies are when they are cached locally. On the other hand, it was very easy to download the font using the path specified in the css file.

:-/

Maybe Trent Reznor or Chris Anderson is reading and will chime in with some encouraging words.

By the way: If you open the developer panel you can even browse the embedded fonts.
(And see the download URLs.)

It also works with OpenType fonts. Maybe I should revert to just selling Mac TrueType and Type 1 fonts. The suitcase files would be unusable on a web server. (I'm kidding, I think.)

In addition to ignoring kerning, it also ignores ligatures as this quick test shows (the sz ch sk and sch should be shown as ligatures). Hopefully they'll get it to start using font features rather than just simply displaying the glyphs in order.

«El futuro es una línea tan fina que apenas nos damos cuenta de pintarla nosotros mismos». (La Luz Oscura, por Javier Guerrero)

It gets better (by "better" I mean "worse"): Open the Activity window and you will see a list of fonts used on the page. Double-click and the font is in your downloads folder.

Note, in the screen shot I posted: No kerning, no contextual forms.

As a font user and web user, I think this is a step forward. But as someone who sells fonts for a living, it makes me just a bit nervous. I'd like to think this is an opportunity, but I can't quite see how yet.

Someone (Ralf maybe) confirmed that Webkit worked with .OTF fonts last-year and there's no reason not to, as all modern OS's support them. Not so sure about iPhone and mobile devices? Anyone know?

I think the TTF positioning we saw last year was to place the focus on 'freeware' fonts which are predominantly Windows flavor TTFs. "Pay no attention to the OTF land grab behind the curtain" ;-)

> I’d like to think this is an opportunity, but I can’t quite see how yet.

I think in the almost two years this has been on the radar, there is either no opportunity* here, or someone has worked one out and is keeping it to themselves.

Cheers, Si

*unless you count Hakon Lie’s “Font designers will find an outlet for their creativity; users will get visually richer content.” ;-)

Double-click and the font is in your downloads folder.

Try that on my demo site and try to download Kaffeesatz:
http://www.fonts.info/webfonts/

:-)

there is either no opportunity* here, or someone has worked one out and is keeping it to themselves.

As long as Safari is the only browser supporting it, it won't kick off. But once the majority of users could see it, it will get a huge deal.

Apologies for taking so long to get back to this thread. I'm having health problems lately and feeling decidedly unwell. Thanks everyone for your thoughtful responses.

First and most significantly, I emphasize that the incident regarding Ray does not alter my view of Typophile or its members. I like you all and express the same respect for you all as Stephen has for me, but as some have already pointed out, none of us is immune to criticism. That includes me.

Aluminium: James...I think you’re too serious for the internet. ;o)

Darrel, there's more than a grain of accuracy in that. I have wicked sense of humour, and at the same time I am one who believes very strongly in the power of compassion to redeem the destructive side of human nature. The world does not meet my standards, the internet does not meet my standards. So I'm spending less and less time at Typophile these days as a practical measure. I will always come back tho, from time to time, when I can manage it.

My serious outlook served me well at Wikipedia as a means of getting the typography articles there into shape. I beat off determined sociopaths and trolls there by putting their balls in a testicular vise. It worked.

j a m e s

Coles: James, I respect you, but you’re taking Si’s comments far too seriously. I’m sure if you contacted him directly after you felt offended that he would have been happy to put his comments into context and probably even apologize for any insensitivity. But instead you’ve accused him in the public square for something that most would argue was your own misinterpretation.

So what (the last bit)? Your logic is self-defeating and changes nothing. Sii made his comments regarding Ray in the public square. You are now trying to debunk my reaction in the public square. Some typophilers have had a go at Richard Kegler in the public square. You all had a go at Miss Giggles in the public square. Are you asking for special treatment for Sii? Why should he be treated any differently? He had a go at me by singling out my font EULA on the other thread on web font embedding. Yes he did. Let's reexamine the last bit again:

But instead you’ve accused him in the public square for something that most would argue was your own misinterpretation. That's just your opinion and you have no proof "most people" would argue I misinterpreted. Plus you're generalizing, "most people"? Gimme a break. You'll have to do better than that.

I am sorry to hear Jim Rimmer avoids Typophile because he felt offended. I think that may be indicative of an unfamiliarity with online communication that is often suffered by older users.

You're generalizing again. Want proof? I feel the same way Jim Rimmer does, and I'm not an older user. I've seen many former members much younger than me leave tyophile in past years.

Not only is talk on the web (unfortunately) less genteel, but the poster’s age, experience, tone, and demeanor aren’t immediately apparent like they are in the real world. This makes giving people the benefit of the doubt all the more important. Ask for clarification before accusation. Assume the best in people and you’ll get it.

Assumption of bad faith is a mistake everybody makes in online discussions. I do it, you do it, Darrel does it, John Hudson does it, Hrant, Nick Shinn, Sharon Van Lieu, James Puckett. It happens constantly, here and on every otehr message board on the web. Assumption of bad faith causes a lot of arguments (note I didn't say "most"). In the case of Sii's comments, I assumed bad faith because the snarkiness of what he said was as obvious as all get out. If you cannot admit that---CABAL!

Assume the best in people and you’ll get it.

Man, that is so naive. Assume the best in some people and they take advantage of your good faith by stabbing you in the back. It happened to me recently and I've seen it happen to many other people at typophile.

j a m e s

Migel: James, I don’t agree that Typophile is run by a cabal.

You've got blinkers on.

So, it’s possible that you interpreted Simon’s post in a way that he didn’t intend to.

No. I think I know better than you, I have sharper instincts about these things, and know exactly when to cut the cards. Trust me, I'm an alien.

If everyone attended to type conferences and spent some time socializing, some discussions around here would probably have a less harsher tone.

Tell that to Hrant and Nick Shinn.

j a m e s

Eben: About Moderating: As a moderator I am sure I don’t find or intervene in all the vitriol that goes by, but when I do and it seems excessive I usually encourage folk to keep it nicer. But it has to be a bit protracted and really I can’t MAKE THEM. Further, unless somebody is making personal accusations or insults ( as opposed to insulting their work ) I/we don’t come down like a ton of bricks. And yes, unfortunately that has happened.

Why didn't you or another moderator cut the cards on all the threads where Nick Shinn and Hrant were tearing strips off each other? On one occasion it was left to John Hudson to moderate Nick and Hrant. John cut the cards on that occasion because the personal fight between them derailed the discussion so completely. Like Tiffany and Stephen, you're making excuses for your own intransigence and gutless attitude to the job of keeping civility.

Another aspect to consider is a kind of human adaptation/weakness. If you know somebody and respect them and have seen their posts be helpful again and again and again it is possible that your sense of what’s right, fair, nice, etc when it comes to their posts is shifted a bit. You may give them more benefit of the doubt. It’s not ideal but it’s human and no doubt this is even adaptive to a degree. In my case I am sure you fall into that category, so as you see it works both ways. Not that that should matter. So as I say when it comes to moderating I try hard to put that aside in the interests of fairness but I can’t be sure I or anybody else succeeds. In fact the reverse. Knowing you will fail isn’t an excuse for not trying. Instead it all the more reason for doing your best. I promise to keep doing that.

It isn't good enuff. You understimate human nature.

I am happy to talk with you or any Typophiler about this further and I am interested in fairness and in recognizing my and our failings. Here or on IM or email or whatever.

I don't do IM but give me a few days to think and I'll chat with you by email. I don't want to interrupt this thread any further.

j a m e s

I didn't assume bad faith in our "incident", James. I said that what you had written could cause serious embarrassment to me and I asked you to remove it - which you did. It didn't matter what your intentions were. The fact is, what you wrote embarrassed me. I am 56 years old. I think stories of me running around in a halter top make me look ridiculous and since my name is out there to be googled, I don't appreciate it one bit and I don't think I need to put up with it on a professional forum.

Your intentions may have been pure but the result of your actions was mortifying.

Sharon

Sharon: I didn’t assume bad faith in our “incident”, James. I said that what you had written could cause serious embarrassment to me and I asked you to remove it - which you did. It didn’t matter what your intentions were. The fact is, what you wrote embarrassed me. I am 56 years old. I think stories of me running around in a halter top make me look ridiculous and since my name is out there to be googled, I don’t appreciate it one bit and I don’t think I need to put up with it on a professional forum.

Sharon, on that occasion I think you were being way too precious and serious with regard to yourself. I had no idea you are 56 years old so how could I possibly have known better? It would have helped if you had explained what you're telling me now. I even apologized to you by email and got no response, no explanation, after respecting your wishes.

If you think Typophile is a professional forum, oh brother, deary me, no it ain't. I'm kind of embarrassed to be a member. With so many out-of-control egos running the show, it's a circus of the psyche.

I still maintain my respect for all of you, whilst being critical, if you can grapple with the duality of that.

j a m e s

Precious...whatever. Serious, yes. I am a serious person.

Please leave me out of your discussions.

Typophile is a professional forum for me. I've learned a lot here.

Sharon

@me: Double-click and the font is in your downloads folder.

@Ralf: Try that on my demo site and try to download Kaffeesatz:

... and the font is now in my Downloads folder.

Oh, wait. Strike that. I only got the Cutty Fruty font. Kaffeesatz is not listed in the Activity window, just a link to some php code. Double-clicking just gets me a cheeky message. Very clever, whatever you did.

But once the majority of users could see it, it will get a huge deal.

I hope you mean for font developers.

I hope you mean for font developers.

I do.

>someone has worked one out and is keeping it to themselves.

:-)

"If you think Typophile is a professional forum, oh brother, deary me, no it ain’t. I’m kind of embarrassed to be a member. "

Seems that there are a lot of folks that make a living in the world of type design and graphic design in here. I'd call that quite professional.

Perhaps not everyone agrees with the casual tone of the place. That's OK. We don't all have to agree.

Oh, wait. Strike that. I only got the Cutty Fruty font. Kaffeesatz is not listed in the Activity window, just a link to some php code. Double-clicking just gets me a cheeky message. Very clever, whatever you did.

But Kaffeesatz is sitting in my home folder. It only took about 10 seconds using Terminal and no special options or weird commands. Unfortunately, there's only ways of obfuscating these kinds of things. Maybe a script which would provide fonts in an equal manner, but load several dozen fonts each with only a few characters but again that's only to obfuscate it more.

«El futuro es una línea tan fina que apenas nos damos cuenta de pintarla nosotros mismos». (La Luz Oscura, por Javier Guerrero)

Why didn’t you or another moderator cut the cards on all the threads where Nick Shinn and Hrant were tearing strips off each other?

What is the "cutting of cards"? What did john Hudson do that was so effective?

intransigence

the job of keeping civility.

I think it isn't an attitude I come to by choice. That's the part of your argument that I find either very naive or simply underinformed. I remain open to emailing with you later. I am interested in any practical & fair suggests to improve - myself or Typophile. At this point I must point out that you are comitting a minor typophile sin, which is taking a thread waaay off topic. If you must keep writing about this - and maybe you must - I won't stop you - please start a thread of your own.

But now back to the impending tragedy! The more I read the worse it seems.

Si, are we doomed?

But Kaffeesatz is sitting in my home folder.

That's fine. When I set this up, I was mostly interested in the communication between the client and the "foundry server". It's far from being bullet-proof yet. But please send me an email how you did it (post AT fonts dot info) so I know if you used a security hole I know of. Thanks!

Ralf

>>>I wonder if there are tables that can be removed from the fonts to make them less usable if extracted?>>>
> I could imagine browsers making use of fonts without using the OS/2 table

Missing an OS/2 table will not prevent Macs or Linux boxes from using the font. But it probably will make Windows unhappy.

>Depending on how the glyphs are rendered, you might also be able to do a similar trick with the maxp table
This table contains important information for truetype instructions. The glyph count can be figured out from the size of the 'loca' table, but the other information cannot be. I don't think the font would work in a browser even. If it's got a CFF table rather than glyf then 'maxp' could probably be omitted.

Tables:
'CFF ' -- Can't be omitted, contains outlines.
'loca'/'glyf' -- Can't be omitted, contains outlines.

'cmap' -- If you omit this you'd have to supply a GID stream on your web-page rather than text. I don't think that's a good idea (you'd have to extend html/xml somehow, and the w3c wouldn't go for it because you could only display with a particular version of a given font -- no speach synthesis possible).

'head' -- Supplies unitsPerEm, without this table there would be no way to figure out how to scale the font.

'hhea'/'hmtx' -- Omitting these would break a truetype font, but might be ok in a CFF font (the advance width is stored in the 'CFF ' table as well as the 'hmtx' table.

'maxp' -- Omitting would probably break a truetype font, might be ok on a CFF font.

'name' -- This could be omitted without breaking the font. But since that's where license info is stored it might not be a good idea. (FreeType will display a font without a 'name' table though)

'OS/2' -- Omitting might make Windows unhappy, but is ok for Macs and FreeType

'post' -- This could be omitted without breaking the font. (Again, FreeType will display a font without a 'post' table).

So the 'name' table seems about the only thing that contains non-essential information and might still break the font as far as the OS was concerned.

Great analysis. But maybe some of these techniques coupled with aggressive subsetting might make foundries more comfortable? Probably not.

MacWorld - summary - it's all good...

http://www.macworld.com/article/132708/2008/03/safari31.html

"First up is Web Fonts, an extension to CSS (cascading style sheets) whereby an entire TrueType font downloads automatically when a page loads. This eliminates the tedious design step of converting unusual fonts to graphics before placing them on a Web page, and assures that all viewers will see pages the same way, whether or not they have the fonts installed on their systems." ... "Pages using Web Fonts load quickly and transparently in Safari 3.1"

>Si, are we doomed?

I've given up being a merchant of doom. In my opinion despite being a somewhat slow moving beast the font business is stronger and more profitable than ever, with lawyers and biz-dev people at least as good as the type designers. It will survive this, but probably at the expense of increased enforcement costs, and a PR hit or two around that enforcement.

Cheers, Si

We've been focusing on Safari here and the fact that you CAN'T turn this option off.

I can't imagine Firefox or even IE putting that kind of big-brother power in the hands of the site designer. The web is about giving as much control to the consumer of the information as it does to the person disseminating it.

So, worse case scenario, there'll be a lot of ugly sites on iPhones. I do imagine Apple will change this option eventually, though.

Found this today - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080327-safari-on-windows-decidedl... - ironic that in installing Safari I violated the Safari EULA - does Apple really expect web page designers to read font EULAs to determine redistribute-ability of a font, when they shipped a product with a EULA that almost every (Windows) user violates? Just goes to prove that no one reads the EULA, even the people who wrote it ;-)

>I do imagine Apple will change this option eventually, though.

Yes we shouldn't get hung up or sidetracked on this question, I'd consider it a bug.

>I can’t imagine Firefox or even IE putting that kind of big-brother power in the hands of the site designer.

IE...

sii...yes. In case I didn't say that right, that's exactly what I meant...even IE wouldn't forbid the end-user from turning the option off. ;0)

As for the security issue, I stumbled upon Ralf's blog posting:

http://www.typophile.com/node/38534

It was fairly easy to snag the font from that particular example.

Darrel, I understood the point, just wanted to show the dialog that’s been in IE since V4. With respect to the (some may claim overly-complex) IE security zones dialog, this isn't about "font security" (eg extraction) but the risks around malicious or bad fonts. Turning off font download not only de-uglifies ugly web pages but also reduces the attack surface-area.

I agree that it's both a security and aesthetic/usability issue.

Ralf, I e-mailed you my technique and some possible enhancements.

«El futuro es una línea tan fina que apenas nos damos cuenta de pintarla nosotros mismos». (La Luz Oscura, por Javier Guerrero)

If you wouldn't mind sharing with the details I can pass these to the IE team so they can consider these issues if/when they implement support in IE. Currently a font contained in an EOT is held in memory rather than as a file - although the EOT itself will get cached.

Also another thing to note, no one is taking control from the user.

In Safari, OmniWeb, and I assume most other browsers, you can specify a style sheet that overrides those used by websites, although this may have the side effect of canceling out any font selection in favor of a single font. But, note there aren't any options about only allowing certain kinds of borders but not others. If you load a custom style sheet, that's what you get.

«El futuro es una línea tan fina que apenas nos damos cuenta de pintarla nosotros mismos». (La Luz Oscura, por Javier Guerrero)

You have a point, but something that changes "the game" to this extent, probably should be optional, at least to begin with, especially if you're trying to build market share. Add to this the fact that fonts can contain executable code, Safari contains Freetype, and I think making it an option based on security would have been a good idea.

PS thanks for forwarding the other details.

But even TIFF files at one point had an executable code bug...although granted you can turn off images, and most people aren't at the level of making their own CSS.

Some of this is a consequence of using a browser like Safari or IE or FF. IF (a big if i know) sites have proper HTML coding and structuring, there's no reason one can't broswe them without trouble with a browser like lynx. Then you only get the text and information and nothing more. A rather efficient way to browser sometimes.

But, since there are already options to ignore Java, Javascript, and images, I don't think it would be hard to specify no fonts otherthan those already on the machine. Definitely in agreement an option would be nice. OKay bed time hehe

«El futuro es una línea tan fina que apenas nos damos cuenta de pintarla nosotros mismos». (La Luz Oscura, por Javier Guerrero)

Say you made a new font-format called x. Example: "Avenir.x". X would be set up so that it had to fetch parts of the font data from several other files located on your server, linking to these files relatively (and somehow encrypted).

If you download "avenir.x" to a computer any relative links would brake causing the font to fail.

it had to fetch parts of the font data from several other files

I guess Guifa already suggested something similar before.
I just played around with that idea and was very surprised: It already works!

Safari seems to already honor the definition of unicode ranges in the font-face declaration as it was proposed in the CSS3 working draft. So you can easily build one virtual CSS font from several (incomplete) physical font files. So the font acts like one normal font, but in the browser cache there will be a bunch of font files with incomplete character sets. Halleluja! :-)

The more interesting would be if you could shift the codepoint values in CSS but I don't think that's available even though I could have sworn it was, basically the current specification allows you to, say, superimpose a bold font for your normal text's capital letters (or in our case, unify a split font). But, I don't see a way of say, setting your base font to be Times, and then superimpose Times Bold's alphabet onto regular Times' bold mathematics alphabet . If I'm not just crazy that I thought you could do this in CSS please let me know but sadly I think it was over-thinking on my part.

«El futuro es una línea tan fina que apenas nos damos cuenta de pintarla nosotros mismos». (La Luz Oscura, por Javier Guerrero)

Sorry Ralf. I must have missed it scanning through.

The more interesting would be if you could shift the codepoint values in CSS

(To answer your email as well)

Messing aroung with the Unicode values is a clever way of doing it - as long as you have full control over the site. But I think if we want to offer webdesigners fonts for embedding they wouldn't accept such hacks. Copy&Paste still has to work, an html text must also be working in the feed reader and so on.

But the combination of hiding the download URI and splitting the font file is a sufficient level of protection (at least to me). You could even break this down to single characters! Give the fonts the same name and they wouldn't even install in the OS. To rebuilt the original font would be more work than it is today to extract the "Typophile featured face". And since I wouln't put any kerning or OpenType features in a web fonts (because they are not supported), no one could rebuilt the original font, that may also be available with a regular print license.

Shifting the code points via CSS as I was hoping would be possible would allow the text to stay clear for assistance devices and other automated things to still work (as well as copy and paste), but keeping a scrambled font file. With FontForge at least, if there aren't many (or any) code point overlaps, reconstructing a font, at least less kerning information and OT features, is relatively easy.

While I agree its a good bit of work with broken apart files and hidden download URIs, it never hurts to investigate further options (although I think we've basically exhausted them at this point baring using JavaScript).

«El futuro es una línea tan fina que apenas nos damos cuenta de pintarla nosotros mismos». (La Luz Oscura, por Javier Guerrero)

To come back to the dilemma of not having fonts worth embedding:
We decided to do something about it: http://www.fonts.info/info/press/free-fonts-for-font-face-embedding.htm

If you already run Safari 3.1 check out the demo page: http://www.fonts.info/info/press/font-face-embedding-demo.htm
If you don't, install it! Really! ;-)

Ralf:

NICE! That's great that you're doing that.

Interesting EULA...it's the opposite of most out there (ie, free embedding, pay for print)

Cool - one of my key recommendations (for tomorrow’s Business of Type talk) is that vendors make some fonts available (not necessarily for free) that are licensed for this type of use. That way you can draw a clear distinction between fonts you can use and those you can’t.

Re the EULA - would be nice to allow subsetting, and EOT creation.

Cheers, Si

That way you can draw a clear distinction between fonts you can use and those you can’t.

Good point.

Re the EULA - would be nice to allow subsetting, and EOT creation.

Since they can be embedded it all kinds of »web documents«, EOT is definately included, even though it's not specifically mentioned.

I just tried a developer build of Opera on XP, which has @font-face support. It doesn't use subpixel rendering, so the quality of our CFF fonts is rather bad and it doesn't seem to honor the unicode-range descriptor. So much for splitting up fonts to protect them. :-(

Wasn't Mr. Håkon Lie also active on Typophile? Maybe we can invite him to this new thread.

Yes he did contribute to the last thread. To be honest I think splitting the issues into new separate threads might be more productive. As CTO of Opera he should be able to address the rendering quality issues.

Cheers, Si

Has anyone spotted examples of font-face embedding in the wild?

Two examples:

http://es-de-we.net/
A weblog using the creative commons font "Vollkorn" for headlines.

http://opentype.info/blog/
My weblog using Graublau Sans Web for headlines.

It's good to see that Safari is shipping with support for WebFonts. Prince has done so for a while, and Opera has also published a version with WebFonts:

http://www.princexml.com/
http://labs.opera.com/news/2008/03/28/

It's important to iron out wrinkles in the early phase and I encourage the people here to try it out an repport any problems to the vendors.

Here are some more pages that use WebFonts:

http://www.princexml.com/howcome/webfonts/
http://www.princexml.com/samples/
http://people.opera.com/howcome/2008/ooxml/iso.html
http://people.opera.com/howcome/2008/ooxml/iso.pdf

Not quite in "the wild" -- I'm a civilized person :-)

OH NOES THE INTERNET WILL BE UGLEE!

This is so awesome.
I'm totally going to have a job forever.

>I’m totally going to have a job forever.

Fixing ugly sites or making ugly sites?

Pfft I never make anything ugly.

I did a survey among web designers to find out what they think about the future of @font-face embedding.
Here are the results: http://opentype.info/blog/2008/04/19/font-face-survey-results/

I'm not sure I agree with your comment about what font vendors would like to do. (Hosting the fonts themselves and giving out CSS referencing.) What is the basis for this assertion?

Regards,

T

It's just a theoretical question, based on my ideas how those things could work. I didn't want to imply to know what other font vendors would do.

Interesting discussion about support for @font-face embedding in Mozilla browsers:
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.tech.layout/browse_thread/thr...

The "bug“ of having no @font-face support is now assigned:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70132
This feature is under development.

:-)

"(Hosting the fonts themselves and giving out CSS referencing.)"
Yessssss....

"What is the basis for this assertion?"
My guess is open and open-ended thinking.

Nice work Ralf. I'd very much like to meet the 4% will pay 'per use.' ;)

Cheers!

So the ’name’ table seems about the only thing that contains non-essential information and might still break the font as far as the OS was concerned.

So, did anyone had a chance to try this? Or is there software out there to do this?

I think it's very likely that stripping the name table would break the font for the OS but not for the browsers, since they treat the fonts just as file resources.

Unfortunately, stripping out the name table also removes the copyright and trademark notices.

Also, how would the browser reference the font? Aren't most browsers invisibly installing the font? (That also requires the name table....)

T

Are we saying that I can save an html page in Safari and download the fonts installed in the host's operating system?

If so, then the font license must either cover or limit the rights of the user who downloads the fonts.

If the user has limited rights, he or she may not install and use them in other documents, without violating his or her limited user rights.

It os likely that as most font foundries include PDF embeddable rights, they will also include limited html user rights.

But I doubt if font foundries will unleash complete user rights to install downloadable fonts in their operating system and usse ther fonts freely in any document. That's the same as granting unlimited worldwide rights for anyone for a single sale.

Unfortunately, stripping out the name table also removes the copyright and trademark notices.

Then maybe not the whole table, but certain name fields that might be required by the OS!?

Also, how would the browser reference the font? Aren’t most browsers invisibly installing the font?

I don't know, but it guess it doesn't use any information from the name table. The fonts are just a file resource like an image or a video. The name used within the context of the page is specified by the web designer in the CSS declaration. It doesn't have to have a connection to the actual name in the name table.

So, did anyone had a chance to try this? Or is there software out there to do this?

I found a way to do it. If anyone is interested in the results, send me an email. I don't want to publish it here.

Ralf, why not publish here? Curious.

So what do Typophiles think about this compromise proposal?
(Adding root strings to regular TTF/OTF files)
http://www.w3.org/Fonts/Misc/minutes-2008-10

Ralf, might be better to start a new thread on that one?

Perhaps give a brief explanation on what got us to this point.

Cheers, Si

on a more uplifting note, now that web-fonts are imminent, yes, a new market is opening up - and that market it exciting.

Should we Typophiles assemble a package of the best quality free fonts available for this new use, so when people search it or use bad ones, we can link them right back to one resource where they can find quality fonts to use?

I think about Polaroid, they did instant photography before digital cameras existed, but they didn't move into instant digital photography when that started up, they waited, and they suffered for it.

I think the foundries that will be big and strong in 10 years will also be the foundries that have embraced this current technology, and have found a way to offer and target products directly at it.

>a new market is opening up

please explain your business model

>Should we Typophiles assemble a package of the best quality free fonts

I think this has already been done. Can't find the link though. The list will be quite short...

http://www.webfonts.info/wiki/index.php?title=Fonts_available_for_%40fon...

>I think the foundries that will be big and strong in 10 years will also be the foundries that have embraced this current technology

Historically that doesn't seem to be the case. In terms of the digital revolution the "big and strong" foundries are those that previously owned the historical typefaces and the all-important trademarks and have relatively strong EULAs and a team of lawyers ready to club infractions. The successful "small and strong" foundries have restrictive EULAs and good lawyers. So far the experiments in opening up and open source have met with limited commercial success for those involved.

>>Should we Typophiles assemble a package of the best quality free fonts

Okay here it is...

http://opentype.info/blog/2008/08/05/10-great-free-fonts-for-font-face-e...

"...a brief explanation on what got us to this point."
Wile E. Coyote (Carnivorous Vulgaris), was playing with matches and fuses, on a pile of ammo and TNT, atop a small mountain of gas cans in a seemingly tiny boat on a mercilessly swift river about to go off a huge waterfall, whilst strapped to a giant arrow supposedly pointed at the spot on a bridge just down river where Road Runner (Accelleratii Incredibus), is about to pass?

Cheers :)

I got a big bang out of that one, David :-)

ChrisL