Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software

Another Stab at Online Outline Fonts 65

Posted by timothy from the transportability dept.
orest writes "Microsoft took a whack at it with WEFT. Bitstream tried TrueDoc. But someone has finally gotten somewhere with sIFR. sIFR allows web designers to render font outlines -- and thereby their preferred fonts -- in a visitor's web browser, without those fonts being installed on the visitor's computer. sIFR relies on JavaScript and Flash to accomplish its magic. A similar, bleeding-edge solution exists in Batik, an open-source SVG browser from the Apache Foundation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Another Stab at Online Outline Fonts More

Another Stab at Online Outline Fonts

Comments Filter:

  • Anyone see a problem with this? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @09:51PM (#12084635)
    Javascript has its uses and its abuses. For a lot of browsing, it's best to have it turned off. But what happens if you have to have it enabled just to read the text?

    I wonder if it's a good idea to sacrifice security because a web developer is addicted to a certain font.
    • You don't have to have it enabled. It degrades gracefully -- if JavaScript is disabled or if the user doesn't have flash, regular text is displayed. That's the big advantage, and that's why it works well enough to have "arrived." Users who don't want JavaScript enabled don't lose any content, but users who do (a vast majority) see the page presented as the designer intended.
      • That's not new either. In any page where I use JavaScript I make sure that things still function sanely, albiet not as prettily without JS.

        One definate advantage I see here over PNG seems to be the ability to select (for copy-paste) sections of the text (and thus less difference from "normal" text as far as the viewer is concerned)

        Personally, I don't like the overuse of Flash, but then again, most people out there don't care if their sites look good in eLinks. (yes, it actually bothers me when a site loo

        • Personally, I don't like the overuse of Flash, but then again, most people out there don't care if their sites look good in eLinks. (yes, it actually bothers me when a site looks funny in eLinks... go figure)

          Not so strange...I always test in links. It gives me an idea how things will look to search engines, and is also a decent first pass at testing text-to-speech browsers. If it's an ungodly mess in links, it's going to be unintelligible when the computer reads it out loud. Glad I'm not the only one ;)

          • It gives me an idea how things will look to search engines, and is also a decent first pass at testing text-to-speech browsers.

            I was going to raise the accessibility issue, but you beat me to it.

            One of the problems with using images for text is that it makes it very difficult to render properly in a non-visual browser. Even with alt tags, you don't have the usual accessibility-friendly CSS to indicate whether things should be read normally, spelt out (as for abbreviations), etc.

            It would be nice if a

      • Re:Anyone see a problem with this? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Niggle ( 68950 ) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @04:51AM (#12086900) Homepage
        If you're running with something like Firefox's Flashblock extension then it doesn't degrade at all gracefully. You just get the usual click to play icon instead of the text.

        I should add that whenever I install Firefox for somebody else, I always add this extension. 90% of flash on the web is used for ads that nobody ever wants to see. Most people are just amazed at how much it can speed up page loading.
        • If you're running with something like Firefox's Flashblock extension then it doesn't degrade at all gracefully. You just get the usual click to play icon instead of the text.

          They thought of that, as you'd know if you'd bothered to visit their site:
          And hey, if you are using something like FlashBlock, which means you want to use Flash but only if it suits you, you may be interested in our Greasemonkey scripts which allow you to disable sIFR.
        • If you're running with something like Firefox's Flashblock extension then it doesn't degrade at all gracefully.

          If I configure a proxy to prevent downloading of image files, I can block most of the ads on the web, yet some pages do not display as the designer intended. Is that their fault for using images, or mine for deliberately blocking content that might be legit?

  • Using flash instead of images. (Score:3, Informative)

    by numbski ( 515011 ) * <[numbski] [at] [hksilver.net]> on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @09:52PM (#12084643) Homepage Journal
    The only benefit I see to this is that it allows dynamic content where an image would have been used before.

    I guess this is good, except I'm running flash click to play in Firefox, and have JavaScript pretty paired down.

    This would count as a beneficial use of flash in my book. I've used WEFT and Bitstream's solution. Never did work in Mozilla. :\

    If this will work well, then I'm all for it.
    • I guess this is good, except I'm running flash click to play in Firefox, and have JavaScript pretty pared down.

      Me too -- and it sure plays hell with sIFR. It detects that I don't have Flash activated, so it displays the CSS-rendered text. Then I click the Flash box and see the sIFR-rendered text, also.

      Personally, I don't think it's the fix to browser fonts. Clever hack, yes. Solution, no.

      I do have the feeling we're not far off, though. Actually, here's one way you could do it -- generate a gif for
  • sIFR has been around for ages now! Why is it only just making it onto here and being touted as "finally" being here?
    (That is, if this isn't a dupe from something months ago).

  • Mainstream Usage (Score:3, Informative)

    by WarpFlyght ( 586558 ) <warpflyght@@@telltales...net> on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @09:52PM (#12084645) Homepage
    sIFR has come far enough to be used on major websites. Aside from seeing it in places like one of the website [shauninman.com] of the person who perfected it, it's also appearing on mainstream websites -- take ABC News [abcnews.com]. Their headlines are rendered using sIFR for browsers that support it.

  • Png? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by NotoriousQ ( 457789 )
    And how is this different then just sending a png with the text. I guess it could then be dynamically sized -- but somehow I think that even Flash will have a hard time figuring out if I like my fonts triple sized.
    • Because this doesn't require you to either create a PNG file for each title you want and/or use a server-side script to try and dynamically generate the PNG.
      sIFR takes whatever text already exists and feeds that to a flash file that will format that text (size it up to fit, link it up, etc.) as needed.
      • same idea, just done client-side, which saves bandwidth.
        • But what is bigger the tiny png's or the Javascript + whatever else this requires?
          • smaller? in the long run probably the flash+JS, since the flash and possibly even most of the JS can be cached once and reused for all the different titles. just a single call to the cached JS routine and cached flash file with a font name and text would be enough. (say 100 bytes of data for each call plus maybe 100k up front for the flash app and JS routine?)
            conversely for server-side PNG, each string of text would require an entire graphic to be sent. (at least a few kB of data for small monochrome images
      • How is that different than using JavaScript to put together a bunch of PNG images (one per letter) for each title?

        Anyway, the older technologies seem much better, and/or using some form of SVG + JavaScript. Flash is zombie technology -- it's dead, but people use it anyway.
        • How is that different than using JavaScript to put together a bunch of PNG images (one per letter) for each title?

          Because then you can't control kerning, leading (with more than one line), ligatures, size or anything to keep it from looking like absolute crap.

    • Re:Png? (Score:2, Informative)

      by WarpFlyght ( 586558 )
      It's different because it degrades gracefully for text-only browsers and screen readers. As I recall, the JavaScript estimates the size of the headline based on your font settings and renders the headline accordingly, so people browsing with their font size at extra large aren't affected.

      The only time it doesn't work for triple-sized fonts is if you adjust the font size while viewing the page. The JavaScript runs on page load, so you'd have to refresh to get the increased sizes to be reflected by the Fla

  • ironic (Score:3, Interesting)

    by same_old_story ( 833424 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @10:12PM (#12084807)
    this is kind of ironic actually.

    anybody that does lots of flash design will tell you, flash is a pain in the ass when it comes to type...
    granted, using your font of choice is great for design, and a huge improvement over html's font families, but flash has lot's of problems with text rendering, sometimes smoothing too much or sub pixel positioning quirks. these issues can be avoided, but still photoshop, for example, renders much better looking type.

    I guess when we get flash's new text rendering engine [markme.com]on the next flash player version, this will improve...

    • Re:ironic (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jonadab ( 583620 )
      > granted, using your font of choice is great for design

      On the web, it's great for *bad* design.

      On paper, it's different, for a couple of reasons. For one thing, the users can't possibly substitute their own preferred fonts into a paper publication, so the only two options are for the creator to choose nice ones, or for the creator to choose ones that aren't very nice (*cough* Times), don't go well together, or cetera. But there's another difference: on paper, the text is rendered to a much higher r
  • Can screen readers and the ilk handle this stuff? Also doesn't it kinda give a big FU to my userContent.css font settings?
    • Yes, screen readers can handle it. The text remains in the HTML, and the JavaScript just creates Flash headlines containing it on the fly for user agents supporting it. One of the most important advantages of sIFR over PNG/GIF headlines is that the original text remains with no trickery, so it's 100% accessible for people with disabilities and for text-only web browsers.

      As for your custom font settings, yes, I suppose it does, but so do PNG/GIF headline images. If you disable JavaScript or Flash, you sho
  • Meh, nothing to see here.

    I hacked up this solution to auto-generate 'pretty' page titles for CMS-driven websites *many* years ago. Mine didn't require Javascript.

    Course, I didn't give it a spiffy name, apply for a patent and file a press release on discovering the obvious.

    Option 1:

    Step 1:

    Embed font in question in sized Flash title block area, create variable text field named titletext

    Step 2:

    Embed Flash applet in page, and add titletext=whatever into your embed and object code. Whatever being the curr
    • Care to provide an example?

      And sIFR has been around for quite some time too. And it's not patented. And Shaun Inman came up with, a lot of people have worked on it since. And there was no press release.

      Other than that, your post is pretty accurate.

  • a real challenge (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CyberVenom ( 697959 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @10:15PM (#12084829)
    Ok, so who wants to one-up this and write a full-featured text-rasterizer in pure JS?

    I propose a JavaScript that can load a server-side TTF file (or OpenType or whatever) and walk the DOM, reading the CSS font name, and replacing the normal text with a rendering of the same in the specified CSS font, but rendered by the JavaScript instead of by the browser so it is gaurenteed to be done right. Of course, if the user has no JS, it will fall back to the CSS font names (which require the user have the font installed) and if the user has no CSS, it will fall back HTML 3.6 fonts.

    The wheels in my head are already turning...

    Oh, and before any of you leeches goes and patents it, I hereby declare prior art on the concept, so there!
    • The reason no one has done that is... you can't.

      Javascript cannot "render" a font that the client does not have. Javascript is executed in the client. What you suggest would only be feasible by rendering an image with the font using server-side language (which some people actually do, but I don't think it's worth the trouble).

      In other issues: seriously, is there so little overlap between the web design community and Slashdot? sIFR has been around for ages, and the submitter didn't even credit Shaun Inman
  • I find the SVG approach more interesting because it's an open solution (well, except for the various viewer implementations at the moment). I don't necessarily see how the Batik viewer comes into this though, because their sample font demos work just fine in the Adobe viewer also.

    This technology is interesting way beyond just the web. It could be used by organizations that require a consistent platform-independent representation of critical documents. Currently PDF is often the choice for that sort of thin

  • Meh (Score:4, Informative)

    by macshit ( 157376 ) * <(snogglethorpe) (at) (gmail.com)> on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @11:35PM (#12085408) Homepage
    I just checked out the website [shauninman.com] someone cited which uses this stuff, and ... well, maybe it's better than other attempts to do the same thing (like "put all text in a image"), but it's still pretty lame.

    Like most other solutions to the "control-freak web designer problem", it seems better suited for a demo than for actual users. For instance, cut-n-pasting the text: it has some clunky emulation of cut-n-paste, but it's obviously an emulation, and doesn't integrate well with the environment. It also has the "flash capture" problem, where flash will grab mouse events you don't want it too -- e.g. if you're scrolling along with the mouse-wheel, and scroll past one of these dynamic font flash thingies, wham! your scrolling stops, as the flash instance grabs all the scroll events.

    Morever, I think any technology which is being touted as a tool to give the designer more control over the fine details is a double-edged sword, as there are so many completely awful web-page "designers" out there, who are none-the-less still utter control freaks. If the technology in question still allows proper user control and overriding of the web-page, and integrates well with the user's environment (e.g.: css), then fine, but this "fonts as flash" stuff seems to be typically lacking in that regard (which is not surprising because flash itself is a major offender).
  • I'm consistently impressed at the amount of effort poured into seemingly trivial hacks - not in the difficulty or complexity of the hack, but in it's shallow utility.

    Either people are paying web "designers" to do a whole lot of nothing, or there is some screaming need that really calls for IETF/W3C to fix this properly.

  • Disabled people use computers too :( (Score:3, Insightful)

    by applegoddess ( 768530 ) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @01:35AM (#12086105) Homepage
    Honestly, I think this is an excellent use of JavaScript (and the whole reverting to good ol' CSS if javascript is disabled thing). It gives control of layout to the designer, but you can't forget the disabled users. They exist, just like you and me. I volunteer to help blind people, and you won't believe what a pain in the !@#$ jaws for windows, voiceover for OS X and speakup for linux are when it comes to surfing the web...all because some developer wanted to use some font he/she liked and implemented that by using flash or putting some stupid image as a replacement (and often forget to include the alt attribute, which noone seems to really use *frown*).

    I can't thank people like the sIFR devs enough for trying to make peoples lives easier.
  • It obviously didn't occur to the sIFR people to test this "solution" in Firefox with the Flashblock extension installed. Why am I not surprised?
    • Anonymous Coward wrote:
      it obviously didn't occur to you to test your "theory" in Firefox with the Flashblock extension installed. Why am I not surprised?
      No theory. Observation. I do use Firefox with the Flashblock extension installed all the time. I checked out some of the pages that use the sIFR "solution" (e.g. "www.sixapart.com"). The text was blocked, and no fallback was shown. When I turned off JavaScript, the text however appeared. sIFR is flawed.
  • The examples look awful if you have adblock enabled!
  • I get enough e-mails at work (in Outlook, so I can't actually override this) which use Comic Sans, 14 point, purple-on-yellow, without the web designers being able to force this on me as well!

    (I know I can turn it off; I'm just ranting.)
  • In flash you can embedd the font anyway.... this is a bastard child solution.

    Use flash, or don't. Otherwise the existing 'problem' isn't a problem, I have installed the fonts I want, use them.

    Browsers could have a font api... but can you imagine the design travesties?

    eurgh!

    • In flash you can embedd the font anyway.... this is a bastard child solution.

      But that's exactly why they use Flash to reach their goals.

      Use flash, or don't. Otherwise the existing 'problem' isn't a problem, I have installed the fonts I want, use them.

      I don't get your statement. Would you prefer having Flash every time a webdesigner wants fancy fonts? This solution allows text in custom fonts proportionally sized to the viewer's display (opposed to standard fixed pixel-defined size), while still m

      • No I understand, and I have seen this in the field. Little adblock tags on my page. It sucks, use a graphic or stick to my fonts, that is me talking as a power user (someone who wants control).

        I see that is works, yes fine, I am not condemning the technology of the solution, but redefining the fact that not having the right fonts isn't a problem (for me).

        Anyway, it is a hack, surely the efforts could have been made to foster the liveFonts initiative? Was this badly written? patented? I don't know, but I u
        • I see your point now, and it's like they said in an earlier comment... sIFR doesn't interact well with flash blockers (and now that you mention, Adblock tabs -- I have disabled the tabs long ago because of how annoying they got on pages with several flash objects, and completely forgot about them), and that's why I too agree it's just a clever hack, not a final solution.

          Btw, thanks for being nice and writing an intelligent post. After my last paragraph I was afraid of ignorant replies :-)

  • Done better with images (Score:3, Informative)

    by jaques ( 686452 ) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @07:41AM (#12087391) Homepage
    http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dynatext/ [alistapart.com]

    The above works better IMO as it uses plain old images to do the job (I dislike flash), plus the markup does need to inlcude these messy tags - it just uses the element text.

    e.g.

    <h1>Some Heading</h1> is auto-replaced by
    <h1><img href="generated_url.png" /></h1>
    where the generated img contains the text "Some Heading" in whatever font you use.

    ok, so there's a performance hit, but images are cached, so its only for the first viewing. The real beauty of it is you just have to chance the text and not worry about the font! Magic

    • Images don't resize with the browser.
      Images can't be selected and pasted as text.
      Images can't be read by external devices for accessibility purposes.

      There are huge tradeoffs to using images, which is why people keep trying to do find a real text based solution to the font problem. Images are just a hacky solution.

      • > Images don't resize with the browser.

        Flash doesn't either, AFAIK. Quick test confirms.

        > Images can't be selected and pasted as text.

        True, but again neither can flash.

        > Images can't be read by external devices for accessibility purposes.

        Again, true, flash wins in this case, although its not easy I suspect. Are there accesibility tools to render flash as html or similar?

        However in the case above, accessibility is well catered for as if images are not supported, the plain html is used, which i
  • I would personally say this kind of thing is exactly the purpose for SVG. I also believe that change and innovation has to come from drive either in the web browser or on popular web pages. I don't mind upgrading my web browser for enhanced features... thats intuitive really.

    So hopefully, new versions of web browsers (IE) will have proper SVG support, and web designers will adopt SVG - as opposed to Flash, as I believe Flash should be more of a peripheral function (along with Java applets), rather than cor

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.

Close