{"rowid": 183, "title": "Designing For The Switch", "contents": "For a long time on the web, we\u2019ve been typographically spoilt. Yes, you heard me correctly. Think about it: our computers come with web fonts already installed; fonts that have been designed specifically to work well online and at small size; and fonts that we can be sure other people have too. \n\nYes, we\u2019ve been spoilt. We don\u2019t need to think about using Verdana, Arial, Georgia or Cambria. \n\nYet, for a long time now, designers have felt we needed more. We want to choose whatever typeface we feel necessary for our designs. We did bad things along the way in pursuit of this goal such as images for text. Smart people dreamt up tools to help us such as sIFR, or Cuf\u00f3n. Only fairly recently, @font-face is supported in most browsers. The floodgates are opening. It really is the dawn of a new typographic era on the web. And we must tread carefully. \n\nThe New Typesetters \n\nMany years ago, before the advent of desktop publishing, if you wanted words set in a particular typeface, you had to go to a Typesetter. A Typesetter, or Compositor, as they were sometimes called, was a person whose job it was to take the written word (in the form of a document or manuscript) and \u2018set\u2019 the type in the desired typeface. The designer would chose what typeface they wanted \u2013 and all the ligatures, underlines, italics and whatnot \u2013 and then scribble all over the manuscript so the typesetter could set the correct type.  \n\nThen along came Desktop Publishing and every Tom, Dick and Harry could choose type on their computer and an entire link in the typographic chain was removed within just a few years. Well, that\u2019s progress I guess. That was until six months ago when Typesetting was reborn on the web in the guise of a font service: Typekit. \n\nTypekit \u2013 and services like Typekit such as Typotheque, Kernest and the upcoming Fontdeck \u2013 are typesetting services for the web. You supply them with your content, in the form of a webpage, and they provide you with some JavaScript to render that webpage in the typeface you\u2019ve specified simply by adding the font name in your CSS file. \n\nThanks to services like these, font foundries are now talking to create licensing structures to allow us to embed fonts into our web pages legally \u2013 which has always been a sticking point in the past. So, finally, us designers can get what we want: whatever typeface we want on the web. \n\nYes, but\u2026 there are hurdles. One of which is the subject of this article. \n\nThe differences between Web Fonts and other fonts \n\nWeb fonts are different to normal fonts. They differ in a whole bunch of ways, from loose letter spacing to larger x-heights. But perhaps the most notable practical difference is file size. Let\u2019s take a look at one of Typekit\u2019s latest additions from the FontFont library, Meta. \n\nMeta Roman weighs in at 42 KB. This is a fairly typical file size for a single weight of a good font. Now, let\u2019s have a look at Verdana. Verdana is 186 KB. For one weight. The four weight family for Verdana weighs in at 686 KB. Four weights for half a megabyte!? Why so huge? \n\nWell, Verdana has a lot of information packed into its 186 KB. It has the largest hinting data table of any typeface (the information carried by a font that tells it how to align itself to the pixels on your screen). As it has been shipped with Microsoft products since 1996, it has had time to grow to support many, many languages. Along with its cousin, Georgia (283 KB), Verdana was a new breed of typeface. And it\u2019s grown fat.  \n\nIf really serious web typography takes off \u2013 and by that I mean typefaces specifically designed for the screen \u2013 then we\u2019re going to see more fonts increase in file size as the font files include more data. So, if you\u2019re embedding a font weighing in at 100 KB, what happens? \n\nThe Flash of Unstyled Text \n\nWe all remember the Flash of Unstyled Content bug on Internet Explorer, right? That annoying bug that caused a momentary flash of unstyled HTML page. Well, the same thing can happen with embedding fonts using @font-face. An effect called The Flash of Unstyled Text (FOUT), first coined by Paul Irish. Personally, I prefer to call it the Flash of UnTypeset Text (still FOUT), as the text is styled, just not with what you want. \n\nIf you embed a typeface in your CSS, then the browser will download that typeface. Typically, browsers differ in the way they handle this procedure. \n\nFirefox and Opera will render the text using the next font in your font stack until the first (embedded) font is loaded. It will then switch to the embedded font. \n\nWebkit takes the approach that you asked for that font so it will wait until it\u2019s completely loaded before showing it you. \n\nIn Opera and Firefox, you get a FOUT. In Webkit, you don\u2019t. You wait. \n\nHang on there. Didn\u2019t I say that good web fonts weigh in considerably more than \u2018normal\u2019 fonts?   And whilst the browser is downloading the font, the user gets what to look at? Some pictures, background colours and whatever else isn\u2019t HTML? I believe Webkit\u2019s handling of font embedding \u2013 as deliberate as it is \u2013 is damaging to the practice of font embedding. Why? Well, we can design to a switch in typeface (as jarring as that is for the user), but we can\u2019t design to blank space. \n\nLet\u2019s have a closer look at how we can design to FOUT. \n\nMore considered font stacks \n\nWe all know that font stacks in CSS are there for when a user doesn\u2019t have a font; the browser will jump to the next one in the stack. Adding embedded fonts into the font stack means that because of FOUT (in gecko and Opera), the user can see a switch, and depending on their connection that switch could happen well into any reading that the user may be doing. \n\nThe practicalities of this are that a user could be reading and be towards the end of a line when the paragraph they are reading changes shape. The word they were digesting suddenly changes to three lines down. It\u2019s the online equivalent of someone turning the page for you when you least expect it. So, how can we think about our font stacks slightly differently so we can minimise the switch? \n\nTwo years ago, Richard Rutter wrote on this very site about increasing our font stacks. By increasing the font stacks (by using his handy matrix) we can begin to experiment with different typefaces. However, when we embed a typeface, we must look very carefully at the typefaces in the font stack and the relationship between them. Because, previously, the user would not see a switch from one typeface to another, they\u2019d just get either one or the other. Not both. With FOUT, the user sees two typefaces. \n\nBy carefully looking at the characteristics of the typefaces you choose, you can minimise the typographic \u2018distance\u2019 between the type down the stack. In doing so, you minimise the jarring effect of the switch. \n\nLet\u2019s take a look at an example of how to go about this.  \n\nMicro Typography to build better font stacks \n\nLet\u2019s say I want to use a recent edition to Typekit \u2013 Meta Serif Book \u2013 as my embedded font. My font stack would start like this: \n\nfont-family: 'Meta Serif Bold'; \n\nWhere do you go from here? Well, first, familiarise yourself with Richard\u2019s Font Matrix so you get an idea of what fonts are available for different people. Then start by looking closely at the characters of the embedded font and then compare them to different fonts from the matrix. \n\nWhen I do this, I\u2019m looking to match type characteristics such as x-height, contrast (the thickness and thinness of strokes), the stress (the angle of contrast) and the shape of the serifs (if the typeface has any). \n\n\n\nUsing just these simple comparative metrics means you can get to a \u2018best fit\u2019 reasonably quickly. And remember, you\u2019re not after an ideal match. You\u2019re after a match that means the switch is less painful for the reader, but also a typeface that carries similar characteristics so your design doesn\u2019t change too much. \n\nBuilding upon my choice of embedded font, I can quickly build up a stack by comparing letters. \n\n\n\nThis then creates my \u2018best fit\u2019 stack. \n\n\n\nThis translates to the CSS as: \n\nfont-family: 'Meta Serif Bold', 'Lucida Bright', Cambria, Georgia, serif \n\nFollowing this process, and ending up with considered font stacks, means that we can design to the Flash of UnTypeset Content and ensure that our readers don\u2019t get a diminished experience.", "year": "2009", "author": "Mark Boulton", "author_slug": "markboulton", "published": "2009-12-16T00:00:00+00:00", "url": "https://24ways.org/2009/designing-for-the-switch/", "topic": "design"}