Question

66

Webfonts or Locally loaded fonts?

rated 0 times [ 67] [ 1] / answers: 1 / hits: 43194 / 10 Years ago, sat, march 1, 2014, 12:00:00

Ever since the troubles brought on by using Cufon I ventured away from using external font resources, but as of late, I have been looking for alternate methods of loading fonts to see if there's a better way; better methods have a way of just appearing out of the blue.

There are a lot of new methods out there, and variations for each method it seems; Should I use typekit? or google webfonts (with js or css)? should I continue to use locally loading fonts (e.g. fontsquirrel.com generated method)?

I'll list the methods that seem the most well received below, with some tests, but is it really worth moving to a webfont? It seems like it would carry a higher resource load (http requests) and have less file format types (less compatibility) etc. But looks like files are loaded async and efficiently in most cases.

Is it just a matter of situation and need? If so, what are they?

Are there drastic differences between these methods?

Is there a better method out there I haven't listed?

What are the pro's/con's for performance? Look? dependencies? compatibilities?

I'm really looking for best practices here, performance is a big thing but so is scalability and ease of use. Not to mention, look and feel.

Google CSS

only uses external stylesheet

only uses smallest compatible file type

can use @import or <link> or take the contents of the styleshee (@font-face) and put it directly into your own stylesheet.

test results

  78ms load of html

  36ms load of css

enter

Google JS Method

uses webfont.js to load styleshet

only uses smallest compatible file type

appends :root element with class

adds script to head.

test results

    171ms load of html

    176ms load of js

    32ms load of css

enter

Typekit method

appends :root element with class.

can use *.js snippet or externally loaded file *.js file

uses data:font/opentype instead of font file.

adds script to head

adds embedded css to head

adds external stylesheet to head

you can easily add/remove/adjust fonts and targetted selectors from typekit.com

test results

  169ms load of html

  213ms load of js

  31ms load of css

  3ms load of data:font/

enter

…& the Font Squirrel Method

@font-face{

    font-weight:400;

    font-style:normal;

    font-family:open_sanslight;

    src:url(../font/opensans-light-webfont.eot);

    src:url(../font/opensans-light-webfont.eot?#iefix) format(embedded-opentype),

        url(../font/opensans-light-webfont.woff) format(woff),

        url(../font/opensans-light-webfont.ttf) format(truetype),

        url(../font/opensans-light-webfont.svg#open_sanslight) format(svg)

}

…or with data:font method…

@font-face {

    font-family: 'open_sanslight';

    src: url('opensans-light-webfont-f.eot');

}



@font-face {

    font-family: 'open_sanslight';

    src: url(data:application/x-font-woff;charset=utf-8;base64,d09GRgABAAAAAF4sABMAAAAArXQAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABGRlRNAAABqAAAABwAAAAcZLn0KkqwK44Jq866WBSpzpsNY2IyGAhoJFBbYjuxmyns5sNa4NwldcJ7eh3Uy5gQkURIlqWzONe3HcLsDX1x/+jifDXvbzgTBjopZElndil3hJkERJkmRJkVRJk3TJkEzJkmzOc4HLXOEOF7nEX/*thisisnotafullencodingjustanexample*/bZwUnK4yS3JlTx2Sr4USKEUSbHVX9fcGNBs4fqgw+GoNHU7lKr36Eqn0lCWt6pHFpWaUlc6lS6loSxRlirLlP/uuU01dVfT7L6gPxyqraluCpgj3WtqeC1V4VBDW2N4K1r1esw/IupKp9L1FwlqnuIAAAB42j3NvQ7BUBjG8R5tTz/0u2UjNTTESYQbMGmXLiISbeI6zBYjbuWtye7CeMJxtuf3LP8ne1+IXbWa7G3TMXZru4qLZkJRW1O2wzi3I+Li2Gik5yXpYkNGXj70YU98YQLGHxwwXxIWwO8SNmAdJBzAXku4gFNI9AF38QMjTwZ9vN6yJzq9OoEB6I8VQzDYK0ZguFKMwWiumIDxTDEFk6liBqaF4gDMFFvKxAfOxFUGAAABUxSL9gAA) format('woff'),

         url('opensans-light-webfont-f.ttf') format('truetype'),

         url('opensans-light-webfont-f.svg#open_sanslight') format('svg');

    font-weight: normal;

    font-style: normal;



}

Answers

Only authorized users can answer the question. Please sign in first, or register a free account.

terrence

Add To Favorites

Follow

Total Points: 120

Total Questions: 115

Total Answers: 87

Location: England

Member since Fri, May 22, 2020

4 Years ago

terrence questions

1 Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'toHexString') in ether.js

Sun, Mar 13, 22, 00:00, 2 Years ago

1 Javascript Remove Focus on Enter Key Press

Sat, Jun 5, 21, 00:00, 3 Years ago

1 Implementing Lodash's debounce in a ReactJS functional component

Mon, Aug 31, 20, 00:00, 4 Years ago

1 How to customize mat select option group to allow nested values in angular

Thu, Jul 23, 20, 00:00, 4 Years ago

1 Read file component (fs.readFile)

Wed, Jun 17, 20, 00:00, 4 Years ago

View All

answered 10 Years ago prestonh · Accepted Answer

First, I'll clear something up about Google's offering. It will actually load the smallest format your browser can handle. WOFF offers small file sizes, and your browser supports it, so it's the one you see. WOFF is also fairly widely supported. However, in Opera for example, you'll probably get the TrueType version of the font.

The file size logic is also, I believe, why Font Squirrel tries them in that order. But that is mostly speculation on my part.

If you're working in an environment where every request and byte counts, you'll have to do some profiling to find out which works best for your use case. Will people be only viewing one page, and never visiting again? If so, caching rules don't matter as much. If they're browsing or returning, Google might have better caching rules than your server. Is latency the bigger problem, or bandwidth? If latency, aim for fewer requests, so host it locally and combine files as much as possible. If bandwidth, go with whichever option ends up with the smallest code and smallest font format.

Now, on to the CSS vs JS consideration. Let's look at the following piece of HTML:

<head>

    <script type=text/javascript src=script1.js></script>

    <link rel=stylesheet type=text/css href=style1.css />

    <style type=text/css>

        @import url(style2.css);

    </style>

    <script type=text/javascript>

        (function() {

            var wf = document.createElement('script');

            wf.src = 'script2.js';

            wf.type = 'text/javascript';

            wf.async = 'true';

            var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];

            s.parentNode.insertBefore(wf, s);

        })();

    </script>

</head>

In many cases, script1, style1, and style2 would be blocking. This means the browser can't continue displaying the document until that resource has loaded (although modern browsers fudge this a bit). Which can actually be a good thing, especially with stylesheets. It prevents a flash of unstyled content, and it also prevents the giant shift that would occur when applying the styles (and shifting content is really annoying as a user).

On the other hand, script2 wouldn't be blocking. It can be loaded later, and the browser can move on to parsing and displaying the rest of the document. So that can be beneficial too.

Specifically talking about fonts (and even more specifically, Google's offering), I would probably stick with a CSS method (I like @import because it keeps styling with the stylesheet, but that could be just me). The JS file loaded by the script (http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/webfont/1/webfont.js) is larger than the @font-face declaration, and just looks like a lot more work. And I don't believe loading the actual font itself (the WOFF or TTF) is blocking, so it shouldn't delay things too much. I'm not personally a huge fan of CDNs, but the fact is that they're REALLY fast. Google's servers will beat most shared hosting plans by a landslide, and because their fonts are so popular, people might even have them cached already.

And that's all I've got.

I have no experience with Typekit, so I left it out of my theorizing. If there's any inaccuracies, not counting generalizations between browsers for arguments sake, please point them out.