Re: Our Thoughts on Questions from Last Weeks Agenda

This is the use case I brought up last week:

Western language websites may not seem like an obvious benefactor of this technology, but that may well be due to a bit of a ‘false flag’ scenario. Designers and developers have been trained to minimize web font usage, generally keeping to 100-200k of font files at most as a ‘best practice’. Some media sites will still use a lot more, but when one compares the usual 3-5 font files used on a typical website to the 10-15 or more in use in a typical print design, it’s clear that design as a practice on the web has been massively constrained due to concerns about performance. This solution would remove that concern by dramatically decreasing the data download per page (especially when combined with variable fonts), sidestepping the performance concerns and allowing for better typography (and by extension, design and user experience).


Jason Pamental
designer, strategist, tinkerer & typographer

jason@rwt.io
m: 401.743.4406
http://rwt.io

Author of ‘Responsive Typography: Using Type Well on the Web’, available from O’Reilly: http://bit.ly/rwtbook

> On Jan 30, 2019, at 3:50 PM, Garret Rieger <grieger@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Me and Rod wrote up our answers to the questions from last weeks agenda here <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AQ2VwiVwF77H2h_nuDHR1A5hRyGlpyIQYpYodMtEz1w/edit>. It covers a recap of the solutions that Google has explored. Discusses our thoughts on what “progressive font enrichment customers” would be looking for and finally we capture a proposal for how to measure success. Hopefully these will be helpful input into the discussions in tomorrow's call.