Preferred outline type in 2019 for webfonts and browser compatibility?
Joseph Gimness
Posts: 3
I'm curious what the current advice is on whether TT or PS outlines are preferred for webfonts nowadays.
Years ago the advice was to use TT outlines (based on body text hinting on Windows GDI + ClearType)
Then an old Typekit blog recommended PS outlines because of horizontal smoothing ( https://blog.typekit.com/2011/07/26/new-from-typekit-improved-font-rendering-on-windows/ )
Now, with DirectWrite being dominant on Windows (at least Chrome browsers), I suppose either format would work.
I've noticed some "webfont generators" are still spitting out TT-outlines regardless of what goes in. I haven't unpacked any woff2 files from Google fonts to see what format they are using, and I haven't gone through the list of what text rendering engine every browser is using either.
What about other OS/Browser combos: Does anyone have any current "best practice" recommendations?
Thanks,
Joseph
Years ago the advice was to use TT outlines (based on body text hinting on Windows GDI + ClearType)
Then an old Typekit blog recommended PS outlines because of horizontal smoothing ( https://blog.typekit.com/2011/07/26/new-from-typekit-improved-font-rendering-on-windows/ )
Now, with DirectWrite being dominant on Windows (at least Chrome browsers), I suppose either format would work.
I've noticed some "webfont generators" are still spitting out TT-outlines regardless of what goes in. I haven't unpacked any woff2 files from Google fonts to see what format they are using, and I haven't gone through the list of what text rendering engine every browser is using either.
What about other OS/Browser combos: Does anyone have any current "best practice" recommendations?
Thanks,
Joseph
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
Well, if you are doing variable fonts, TTF is currently very much the way to go.
Otherwise, I don’t think it is a big deal. There are small advantages in each direction....
OTF/CFF/PS is often a little smaller. TTF works in a few ancient browsers that OTF does not. People can argue about rendering for years to come, but mostly outline format never matters on Mac, and matters most on Windows for those very few fonts that have extensive manual hinting in TTF, where that is an obvious advantage at very small sizes and/or very old versions of Windows. (And increases the file size.)1 -
Thomas Phinney said:Well, if you are doing variable fonts, TTF is currently very much the way to go.
Otherwise, I don’t think it is a big deal. There are small advantages in each direction....
OTF/CFF/PS is often a little smaller. TTF works in a few ancient browsers that OTF does not. People can argue about rendering for years to come, but mostly outline format never matters on Mac, and matters most on Windows for those very few fonts that have extensive manual hinting in TTF, where that is an obvious advantage at very small sizes and/or very old versions of Windows. (And increases the file size.)0 -
Thomas Phinney said:Well, if you are doing variable fonts, TTF is currently very much the way to go.Claudio Piccinini said:would manual hinting be recommended,
I did find this webfont tutorial with some info https://glyphsapp.com/tutorials/webfonts
The answer was to "go test both types", but it seemed to point towards TT-outlines.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 40 Introductions
- 3.7K Typeface Design
- 793 Font Technology
- 1K Technique and Theory
- 609 Type Business
- 443 Type Design Critiques
- 536 Type Design Software
- 30 Punchcutting
- 135 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 82 Technique and Theory
- 53 Lettering Critiques
- 478 Typography
- 300 History of Typography
- 113 Education
- 65 Resources
- 494 Announcements
- 79 Events
- 105 Job Postings
- 148 Type Releases
- 161 Miscellaneous News
- 269 About TypeDrawers
- 53 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 116 Suggestions and Bug Reports