Make Your Own Fonts, In a Web Browser

Dekortage writes "Although it's been up for a few weeks, today is the official launch of FontStruct, a web-based font creation tool. That's right: in your web browser, you can build your own typeface, and download it as a TrueType font. The site's user agreement requires you to release your creations online under one of the Creative Commons licenses. The typefaces tend to be a little blocky, but it's still impressive (and a great way to pass time)."

kinda clunky, but LOTS of fun!

[Ralph Spoilsport (673134)]

I went there, signed up and built a very basic font. Very pleased. It's NOT great font work, but it's fun and could be very useful in an intro to type and typography class, or for high school students.

RS

Great

[by Anonymous Coward]

Just what we need ... the ability for websites to easily create their own font, ignoring the hundreds of years that have gone into perfecting typography.

Re:

[CRCulver (715279)]

Furthermore, creating a typeface that is actually in this day and age when the Internet goes beyond North America and Western European countries requires wide Unicode coverage, but I imagine (I haven't RTFA) that the people toying around with this are producing only ASCII/Basic Latin fonts, exactly what we don't need.

Re:Great

[Vectronic (1221470)]

Who is "we"?...

You just typed out about 50 words using what you "don't need"...

Granted, nothing ground breaking as far as font creation goes is going to come of this website... but if anyone is serious about making typography isn't going to be using some web-based font creating tool... as the original/first poster said, this is great for younger people/inexperienced users as an introduction to typography...

Besides, since the actual site is slashdotted (at this moment) maybe it can handle more advanced typesets... I watched the little video, and I was impressed that it wasn't just 1-0, A-Z, a-z but what seemed to be the full set...

However, I do find this sort of disturbing, or "cheap" because it desregards the hundreds (thousands?) of years that have gone into designing fonts... and that it is still rather limited until its vector-based...

As a side note: http://www.helveticafilm.com/ [helveticafilm.com] is an interesting documentary on the history of a single font (at least i found it interesting)

Re:Great

[CRCulver (715279)]

You just typed out about 50 words using what you "don't need"...

Because I was responding to a poster in English with just English words. However, most of the writing I do online requires the use of multiple languages, many requiring letters present in Unicode Latin Extended A and B and the upper ranges of the Cyrillic block. I'd rather see more people using e.g. the DejaVu fonts [sourceforge.net], which look just as good as the Bitstream Vera the Free Software community already took to its heart, but which at least has that Unicode coverage there if you should ever need it.

Re:Great

[YourMotherCalled (888364)]

I end each of my sentences with an ellipsis... Even the questions?... Yes...

Re:

[CastrTroy (595695)]

Or Tamil, if I'm not selling my product in South India

Because you're selling your product in Sri Lanka?

Re:Great

[Ed Avis (5917)]

It's either that or they just go back to using Comic Sans.

OT: Question

[NotQuiteReal (608241)]

I would really like to standardize on a Comic font, but a bit more formal than Comic Sans.

Can someone direct me to an open source Comic Serif font?

Thanks!

Re:Great

[Nimey (114278)]

Yes, as if MySpace wasn't ugly enough!

They can't do that

[QuantumG (50515)]

There's no part of copyright law that allows a tool creator to dictate how the output of the tool can be licensed.. unless, of course, there's some significant amount of copyrightable material being added to the output above and beyond what the user of the tool is supplying. For example, a compiler compiler will generate code from the input CFG and embed additional code in the output that was written by the author of the tool, so this could be claimed as his copyright, but the generated code, no matter how well it was generated, is a result of the CFG writer, and is therefore his copyright.

Of course, none of this has been tested in court.

Re:They can't do that

[Oligonicella (659917)]

The site is /.ed at the moment, so I can't tell if you have to use their servers for the processing or even read their user agreement. But, all they have to do is tell you that whatever you create on their site they will keep a copy of and release, and if you agree, you relinquish copyright.

If you want to retain full ownership, do it at home.

Re:

[QuantumG (50515)]

Click through contracts are rarely enforcible.

Re:They can't do that

[Culture20 (968837)]

Click through contracts are rarely enforcible.

... if the click is expected after delivery of end product and receipt of payment. This would be a contract you click before you get the end product... and there's not even any payment!

Re:They can't do that

[Bogtha (906264)]

There's no part of copyright law that allows a tool creator to dictate how the output of the tool can be licensed

Who needs copyright? If you don't agree to the terms, they simply won't generate the font file for you. Just because they don't have copyright over the final result, it doesn't mean they are compelled to provide you with service.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

I think part of the reason for requiring the CC license is because as part of the site, your font shows up as a font that was recently created. In other words, by creating the font, you're submitting that user-created content to the community. If you're submitting it to the community, they require that it be released under a license where people can actually use the font.

(So, essentially, "if you don't like it, don't post" except that when you create, it posts automatically.)

But why CC?

[tepples (727027)]

If you're submitting it to the community, they require that it be released under a license where people can actually use the font.

Then why Creative Commons, when the GNU GPL for fonts [gnu.org] is better known and more clearly allows embedding of the font in, say, a Free computer program?

Re:

[Lanoitarus (732808)]

You'd be correct if they were SELLING the tool, which they are not.

However, if their agreement for use says in exchange for free use of the tool, the result is XYZ license, and you agree to that, then yes, its legal for them to require it.

This is aside from the other replies addressing the fact that the server side probably does have some amount of creative input.

Re:

[fishbowl (7759)]

>Of course, none of this has been tested in court.

Hardly anything has been more thoroughly tested in court than the rights reserved under copyright law,
and the effect of licensing those rights.

Re:They can't do that-gcc example

[Nom du Keyboard (633989)]

There's no part of copyright law that allows a tool creator to dictate how the output of the tool can be licensed.

You make a good point. Suppose it was demanded that everything compiled under gcc had to be open-sourced? That probably wouldn't go over too well with everybody.

Re:

[jbengt (874751)]

Every time a browser renders a document, Google caches a web site, a printer "receives" a document, or a graphics card transfers data, they are violating copyright law

No, in the USA at least, the law explicitly allows the transient copies made by computers, network transfers, etc. Google cahces are a little les clear, though.

METAFONT

[Hatta (162192)]

Why not use Metafont [utah.edu]? Vastly more powerful, and available for free on any platform TeX is.

Re:METAFONT

[stubear (130454)]

Apparently you've never created a font before. It's not a process where you set a few parameters and cross your fingers. A proper type face has specially styled italics characters, not just skewed ones, proper kerning, different weights and sizes for captions and headlines, etc. OpenType has opened up the type world to many new alternative possibilities with swashes, stylistic alternatives, tabular and old-style lined numerals and a whole slew of other options for designers to take advantage of in their work. I just don't see metafont making the process of font creation any easier than say FontLab.

Fonts are hard work

[StreetStealth (980200)]

Indeed, indeed.

There's a reason that professionally designed, usability-centered type families cost hundreds of dollars [fonts.com] -- they take many months of careful planning, experimentation (often through scientific trials [clearviewhwy.com]), and adjustment to bring from concept to completion.

It is no more possible to quickly design a good typeface online than it is to quickly design a good CRM system and database backend using an easy online construction kit.

Re:

[Darinbob (1142669)]

But Metafont does those things. Maybe you're confusing it with some generic X Windows fonts that didn't have kerning or italics and such?

One snag with Metafont is that you have to be spend a lot of time with it and it's not designed for the casual user. You define fonts mathematically with it, so even graphic artists used to creating fonts may not like it. The other snag is that it doesn't easily convert to the commonly used vector-outline fonts (Postscript, TrueType, etc) since it uses pen strokes inste

Re:

[zsau (266209)]

That's precisely the point behind METAFONT. It's meant so that you can specify the basic shape of the letters and a shitload of parameters, and you'll get a lot of italic letters ("n" or "i", but not "a" and "z"), weights, sizes etc. essentially for free. Obviously some things still need to be done manually; I doubt you could generate old style or lining figures from the same source.

The problem with METAFONT is that most people can't design something graphical without seeing it; and that there's a lot of wo

because 90% of the world cant use it

[by Anonymous Coward]

But this being a web application (like gmail/calendar/docs) it only needs a dom based browser to have fun with (which is "everyone",more or less right?) and supports the most common font format on the planet by default, truetype .ttf

Metafont isn't like any of those easy requirements, it doesnt "just work" for "everyone", it could, but it doesn't, so it fails.

thats why not METAFONT

Awww!

[pete-classic (75983)]

My font looks like a database connection error. :-(

-Peter

Re:

[thewils (463314)]

Yeah, but it's still "a great way to pass time" though...

Would've Been Cool

[vertigoCiel (1070374)]

About 10 years ago, when pixel fonts were all the rage. If you didn't check the site out, it allows you to create fonts in a NxN grid, using predefined primitives (circles, stars, rounded corners, etc). Not a whole lot of variety possible. If they came up with a vector-based online font creation tool, that would be something I could get excited about.

nothing wrong with pixel fonts...

[Animaether (411575)]

especially if you can make them really, really tiny but still 'legible' (often requiring context of nearby letters, granted). I made one - it's used in graphics and licensed by one party for print ('read the fineprint' takes on a whole new meaning when the font is baseline 3 pixels tall.)

Other than that, pixel fonts are still routinely used in games - simply because rendering a vector font is more expensive than rendering a sprite.

Why would anyone post this on slashdot?

[astrashe (7452)]

There's no way a site like this could withstand heavy traffic. I don't know why the editors would sink it like this.

It will probably be dead for days now.

Re:Why would anyone post this on slashdot?

[Bragador (1036480)]

You must be new here...

Slashdot is now an experimental weapon to take over the intertubes. Its aim is to supplant even the biggest of botnets.

We are succeeding... one website at a time.

Re:Why would anyone post this on slashdot?

[pablomme (1270790)]

Spot the irony:

Bragador (1036480) to astrashe (7452): You must be new here...

Re:

[DMUTPeregrine (612791)]

Everyone is new here. Even CmdrTaco. The universe is about 14 billion years old, it's hard to not be new here.

Now you see it...

[The Ancients (626689)]

...now you don't.

Pointing /. at a user-interactive site like this is going to cause tears. Lots of tears. Well, tears, or lots of heat from their servers.

The home page is now serving up:

404. Not found The requested address was not found on this server.

I guess I'll bookmark it and come back tomorrow.

Re:

[YukiCuss (960733)]

I guess I'll bookmark it and come back tomorrow.

You and the rest of the world, unfortunately. The second Slashdotting, as it were.

This is great.

[arthurpaliden (939626)]

This is great. You no longer just have to waste time trying to find the font that is just right. Now, you can waste even more time by building it exactly the way you want.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how many times font forge has made for many an unproductive day.

Time to make a Mohammet Font

[jameskojiro (705701)]

That will be banned in many middle east countries and the Netherlands and will cause as Fatwa against me.

Ever letter will be an image of old mo' and if you change your default web browser font to it you will make all 72 virgins in heaven cry.

Re:

[rossz (67331)]

I'd like a copy of that when you finish making it. Any opportunity to annoy hypersensitive religious assholes is time well spent.

Tried it and...

[by Anonymous Coward]

I tried creating a font and the typeset downloaded only included the following characters:

S L A H O T E D

What words can I compose with that... dunno.

Re:

[Kozz (7764)]

A shat lot, Ted! Lead the teal hats to LA. Does he taste hot slots? At least slated, eh...

Don't Like The Forced CC License

[Nom du Keyboard (633989)]

Much as I like OSS, I don't like the forced approach here to requiring you to license your creative work for free. Encourage it sure, but to force it? Suppose you just want your own personal font? It won't be yours here, since anyone else can have it too.

Even if they had just said you can't make it here for free and then sell it for money on your own I'd feel better about that. That way my own font could remain my own.

So while it's a nice idea, couldn't they have been a little less heavy-handed about it?

Re:Don't Like The Forced CC License

[stewf (1286436)]

Hi. I'm part of the FontShop team responsible for FontStruct. We're down right now (for obvious reasons -- ouch!) or I'd link you directly to the FAQ page on licensing, but I'll try to clarify it here.

There is no requirement to license your work. New FontStructions are private by default and you can download it for yourself to your heart's content. Only when you choose to make it public do you need to select a CC license.

But you can't download them in the browser

[Animats (122034)]

But you still can't download fonts in the browser as part of an HTML document.

That used to work, back in the early days of Mozilla. Microsoft refused to put it in IE, and came up with their own, incompatible system. Mozilla then took theirs out.

Re:

[QuantumG (50515)]

Copyright owners being megalomaniacs? Never!

Re:

[Eco-Mono (978899)]

Mod whoever modded this -1 Redundant +1 Funny please.

Re:but .. but .. why ?

[Hatta (162192)]

Apparently you don't know any graphic designers. After you use the same font about a thousand times, you get sick to all hell of it. Using the same font over and over again makes your work look repetetive, boring, and not as much fun as it should be. Using unique fonts can put some originality back in your work.

Of course, that mainly applies to display fonts. Text fonts are pretty limited in their design because they need to be legible.

Re:

[Dekortage (697532)]

There's a troll if I ever read one.

A bad graphic designer puts the shiny above the usable. A good graphic designer recognizes when a bit of shiny actually enhances the results -- and for a designer and fonts, it may be that too many other people are using a font, so it no longer stands out. When WIRED Magazine launched, they made the then-fresh Myriad typeface popular, and Apple adopted it not long afterwards. Now it's everywhere (and is even the default chosen typeface in many Adobe apps). So what was