- From: Adam Twardoch (List) <list.adam@twardoch.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:19:36 +0100
- To: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
- CC: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@google.com>, public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
In many cases, saving a page locally without the linked fonts will produce poor results. First of all, the Unicode Standard includes a huge number of interesting characters that are currently not being included as text in web pages, but could, when the use of webfonts increases. For example arrows, box drawing, block elements, geometric shapes, symbols, dingbats, or the newly-added emoticons could be easily used on web pages, especially with webfonts. Some of those characters may be very well not included at all in any system fonts, so webfonts may be the only means to visualize those. The same would apply for texts written in some less-known or minority writing systems. If the fonts are not included, the text on the page becomes completely unreadable. Also, some webpage layouts will completely explode if the original font is not used. If I design a page using a very condensed font at a reasonably large size, and fit many columns into the page width, the page may look great when the webfonts are available, but if they are not, the complete page will "fall apart". HTML is, in the end, more of a page layout language than just a text markup scheme. Preserving the typographic appearance when the page is saved locally is just as important as preserving images. When we're trying to educate web developers that they should adopt webfonts because this way they can stop using "text as image" techniques, we need to make sure that this switch won't backfire on them. Nothing will be more off-putting than finding out that, once the page has been saved locally (or printed, for that matter), the page has been rendered useless because characters would appear as .notdefs rather than the intended glyphs. Since the early 1990s, computer users are used to WYSIWYG. When I print a Word document, I expect the prinout to closely resemble the screen appearance, with the changes necessary for switching the media (i.e. the text would be higher-resolution when printed than on screen, or images would be grayscale if printed on a monochrome printer). I think users expect the same to be the case with the web. I doubt any user will understand why a page that looks fine on the screen should, when saved or printed, appear crippled. Should that happen, web users will complain to web developers, and those might, in the end, turn webfonts their backs by deeming them "unreliable technology". Best, Adam
Received on Monday, 22 November 2010 17:20:18 UTC