Why don't we hear about more use of variable fonts on the Web?
Comments
-
If the Universal Sans system offered rectangular tittles, could it make Univers?0
-
Compress, express, finesse, was my reformulation in 2018 or so, of David Berlow's "go fish, go figure," which is how he explained in his elliptical poetic style the concepts behind Decovar and Amstelvar Alpha, back in late 2016.
"Go Fish" is the name of a card game, where you draw a card and don't know what you are going to get; the "random style" button of Axis Praxis is a bit like this. But more colloqually, it refers to the phase "fishing around", where you are searching for a prize hidden in murky waters, which is like sliding sliders around to find a style within a variable typeface family that you feel resonates with the
"Go figure" is a American English phrase short for "go figure it out," which is to say "go do some arithmetic". It means, instead of setting axes values directly with a slider, you set some heuristic rules, conditionals based on document contexts outside the font, which in turn determine the axes values via some arithmetical calculation.
An obvious yet cursed example is the optical size axis, where rarely should users set the opsz axis value manually, but rather, set the font-size property, and use that to set the opsz value. (Cursed because while the OpenType spec says the font size should be converted to real physical points and the opsz axis values are such points, all browsers instead resolve the font size to 'css pixels' and set the opsz axis value to the value of px.)
Other common examples are to change axes values like weight or grade in response to dark/normal mode switching; or to change width based on text length or container size changes, like a button label switching from English to German (as German words tend to be longer.)
(The Compress benefit he left out, I suppose, because its not very interesting for typography; I mean, in terms of enabling new typography, it is only enabling new typography for designers who were previously told by developers not to use more than X style due to a file-size/bandwidth budget.)
I've lectured about these in more detail in the last few years, eg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJE8wkNif5I
2 -
Dave Crossland:
rarely should users set the opsz axis value manually,
No, that’s a decision for typographers to make.
I say that based on how various customers of mine have “misused” the optical sizes I’ve provided in typefaces, and yet to excellent effect.5 -
Limitations in frameworks/tools (Wordpress, SASS, ...) that Web developers and Web content authors use?
Yes, this is also one of the reasons why we do not hear much about the use of variable fonts. Around 37% of all global websites are running using WordPress, which is around 62% of all CMS websites [Source]. WordPress, along with other CMSs still doesn't have built in feature for accesing variable properties of a font.
WordPress' native Gutenberg editor still has few typography options which only allow you to set font size. Doesn't even let you choose font family. (That remains theme territory).
More popular page builders like Elementor have built in drop-down for accessing all available Google Fonts, but does not have any UI field for accessing variable axes/properties. There are pre-defined static weight numbers (100 to 900) in a drop-down. So when we choose any static weight instance, the appropriate instance is served like this:https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Open+Sans:wght@300
As Marc Foley said:I guess many web users/developers are seeing/using them without even realising. Open Sans was recently upgraded to a VF and it has around 40 billion requests a week.Old website devs using Open Sans, Raleway, Nunito, Oswald, etc. from Google Fonts might now be using the instance from VF version without even realizing it has been upgraded. The usage is there, but we do not hear much about it's deliberate/custom use.
I believe that once the page builders (popular ones) and UX design applications start giving VF axis options in their UI, there will be more experimental and creative use of variable fonts.
Accesing VF properties from CSS is always open as a raw method, but web designers and front-end developers (including myself) prefer using page builders and CMSs for creating websites. Theme and plugin developers might include a field for VF in their respective settings panel, but that will be limited to the theme itself. So it depends upon bigger players like popular page builders and UI apps, how they add this new feature and promote it's usage.
P.S. This is my first post on TypeDrawers, and I greet all the members and Type Experts with all my respect and admiration. A lot to learn from you all.
7 -
Nick Shinn said:Dave Crossland:
rarely should users set the opsz axis value manually,
No, that’s a decision for typographers to make.
On the one hand, we can say ALL users are typographers, even in plain text environments, since they make decisions about the visual design of text.
On the other, we can say FEW users are typographers, as few will self-identify as that label.I say that based on how various customers of mine have “misused” the optical sizes I’ve provided in typefaces, and yet to excellent effect.Sure, using size specific designs at sizes they weren't intended for can be used to excellent effect, I'm not saying that isn't so.
But the vast majority of users aren't able to achieve those artful effective uses, but they are happy when text automatically looks and works better.
2 -
OK, but at least users/typographers should be able to easily opt out of the default and do manual adjustments. So often, as Saurabh Sharma notes, user-controlled typographic nuance is missing from the UI of mass market layout apps.
2 -
Dave Crossland writes:
How many users are typographers? :P
On the one hand, we can say ALL users are typographers, even in plain text environments, since they make decisions about the visual design of text.
On the other, we can say FEW users are typographers, as few will self-identify as that label.I am one of those few and I would suggest that you check a dictionary for the meaning of the term. To whatever extent your observations are true, it still seems rather cynical to me and it begs the question, For whom are type designers making fonts? I’ve been nagged by that question throughout this thread. I suppose it makes perfectly good sense for Google to pitch their fonts at the lowest common denominator, and to think only about web users; yet it makes equally good sense for others, especially those selling their fonts, to operate at a higher esthetic level. But vis-a-vis VF fonts, is Google’s involvement a case of the tail wagging the dog? Or has everyone else become the tail?
Here’s an argument against the universal automation of size-specific fonts. One person’s judgment of what constitutes a proper regular weight at a certain size will not be the same as someone else’s—at least to those Dave segregates as the FEW. This was clear with MM fonts years ago, but with those fonts, the user made all of the final decisions. There is also the matter of weights intended for the screen not being at all the same as those intended for paper, where the decision is further influenced by printing process and substrate.
But the vast majority of users aren't able to achieve those artful effective uses, but they are happy when text automatically looks and works better.I know, I know; for many a little better (arguably) is good enough. But if that’s true, then it’s likely that type size is not their only problem.
0 -
Nick, indeed, the lack of typographic controls was something that drove me to be dedicated to libre software for graphic design. If you have a libre license to corresponding source code you always have control
And I agree that all users should be able to easily opt out of each "finesse" heuristic run on their text, just the same as they ought to be able to opt out of default line spacing, length, tracking, size, and even family - but at the same time, having good defaults for these things is important, and even the most advanced users are sometimes in a rush and benefit when things Just Work.
Scott, please don't confuse my own personal opinion with the positions of my employer! I am a strong advocate for @Laurence Penney 's proposal to make a ratio override, as you describe, part of CSS. https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4430 But I don't believe the default for the optical size axis should be "off", not at all.
0 -
@Peter Constable wrote:To prepare, I spoke with a number of different people involved in type to get their perspectives, and one of the biggest recurring themes was that it seems more education is needed as to how variable fonts can be useful. But in discussing that further with people, a different thought came out, that perhaps we haven't yet clearly understood a set of distinct benefits and use cases, and what would be needed to succeed in each case.You’ve had about 50 replies in this thread from different perspectives about why we’re not hearing much about VF on the web. I don’t think anyone has said “the problem is more education”. That’s fine to say, but who is expected to deliver this education? Who will be receiving this education? I kinda get the feeling type designers/foundries are expected to educate our customers, but please correct me if I’m wrong!In this discussion, file size benefits have been mentioned—that's compress. There's also been mention of "novelty" fonts; those fall within the express use cases. And there was also discussion of careful typography using, e.g., optical sizing—that's finesse.If we were to perhaps give a percentage weighting to the compress/express/finesse benefit trifecta, how do we think it would land? Based on @Dave Crossland’s comment here:If you're self-hosting a few static fonts on a little zero-million-views blog, that compress benefit won't matter, but when you're serving the world's most used typefaces, it all adds upAnd historical, pre-VF font sales and observation, would it be something like:And begs the question… is the main benificiary actually Google Fonts and others who serve fonts at scale?
- Compress 92%
- Express 5%
- Finesse 3%
2 -
Scott-Martin Kosofsky said:
Here’s an argument against the universal automation of size-specific fonts. One person’s judgment of what constitutes a proper regular weight at a certain size will not be the same as someone else’s—at least to those Dave segregates as the FEW. This was clear with MM fonts years ago, but with those fonts, the user made all of the final decisions. There is also the matter of weights intended for the screen not being at all the same as those intended for paper, where the decision is further influenced by printing process and substrate.
There is no “universal automation” being suggested: just a change in the default to make it based on pt/px size rather than fixed at the font default. Nobody has suggested saying an author’s ability to choose optical sizes should be taken away. But there is always a default.
It can be whatever is set by the font as the default (typically 12), it can be the current pt/px size, or it can be some other value set by the app, subject to the range limitations of the font.
Do you honestly believe that having the default be “use 12 px/pt opsz at all sizes, unless the author specifies otherwise” is preferable to “use opsz = px/pt size at all font sizes, unless the author specifies otherwise?”Scott-Martin Kosofsky said:Dave Crossland said: But the vast majority of users aren't able to achieve those artful effective uses, but they are happy when text automatically looks and works better.I know, I know; for many a little better (arguably) is good enough. But if that’s true, then it’s likely that type size is not their only problem.
Why couldn’t that argument could be used against ever making any improvement to almost anything, anywhere?1 -
@Kris Sowersby
I said that a recurring theme in discussions I had with various people was "it seems we need more education", but I also said that wasn't all that was brought out in those conversations. Sure, there were some who said (more or less), "It seems there needs to be more education, but it's not clear to whom or how." But in other discussions, what came out was, "It seems that way, but that may be missing a crucial point."
Also note: the topic in those discussions wasn't specifically the question I raised here, "Why don't we hear about more use on the Web?" Rather it was one point in a more general discussion of what is missing before we could say that variable fonts have been a complete success.
So...That’s fine to say, but who is expected to deliver this education? Who will be receiving this education? I kinda get the feeling type designers/foundries are expected to educate our customers, but please correct me if I’m wrong!
There will certainly be need to educate _some_ customers, but that's only reasonable for a segment of customers that already have some skill in typography. But for the wide swath of users that aren't skilled typographers, realizing benefits of VFs for providing better typography will require getting more typographic sophistication built into software to provide better default behaviours. (And, as Dave is saying, the skilled typographers should always be able to override defaults.)
That means more typographic sophistication leveraging VFs built into Word, Powerpoint, InDesign... and into Wordpress or other CMSes.If we were to perhaps give a percentage weighting to the compress/express/finesse benefit trifecta, how do we think it would land?And begs the question… is the main benificiary actually Google Fonts and others who serve fonts at scale?2 -
Kris Sowersby said:
- Compress 92%
2 -
I don't know if educating the public is what's holding VF back. Perhaps optical size might require an explanation*, but most of the other common axes are already familiar to anyone who's purchased or browsed fonts before. You get the same weight and width variations but it's in one font...not hard to comprehend once you twiddle the sliders. What you don't see is VF being sold by major vendors alongside elementary fonts for recognizable typeface brands. If customers could see VF versions of Neue Helvetica, Proxima Nova, Avenir and Univers alongside the elementary fonts and could fiddle with the sliders, they could weigh the price options. As it is now, VF is a thing you need to seek out, so it appeals only to the adventurous or knowledgeable. Variable fonts are invisible. Look at Myfonts.com and Fonts.com and see if you can find a VF. Dafont, 1001fonts, Fontspring, Creative Market...none of the high-traffic sites feature variable fonts.
I know this thread is specially about variable fonts on the web but I imagine many people who are shopping for fonts to use on the web, check out the high traffic font sites to see what's available. They could check every popular site and not encounter a single VF.
* I've seen lots of VF demo sites where the user can adjust the optical slider, but I think to get the point across, the text needs to scale up and down when the optical slider is adjusted. I think that sort of literal demonstration of the optical axis would transcend language barriers. Even if you don't know the target monitor's size, the customer would be able to feel how the effect works.
1 -
I’m grateful to Dave Crossland, especially for the link to Laurence Penney’s proposal, and Thomas Phinney for the enlightenment about how the defaults will be applied. That wasn’t clear to me in some of the previous posts.
My experience since the late 1980s, when “desktop publishing” became ubiquitous, has been that putting sophisticated design tools into the hands of the many has increased the appreciation and value of work that reflects a command of more sophisticated craft. However, it also demanded a refocus of how one marketed one’s services and to whom. For some, though not all, the advent of OpenType created more profitable niches and ways to demonstrate the value of higher and more particular skills.
But not all designers see things that way and I’ve often found that, even among some of my most esteemed and sophisticated colleagues, whose work is English-language only, there is considerable resistance to embracing new fonts and formats, even when they are demonstrably superior. Those whose needs do not go beyond the standard ASCII glyphs ask, “What’s in it for me?” or say that they already have a body of work in a certain version of a font and don’t want the hassle of changing. They say this even when they recognize the superiority of the new font. That’s what one is up against marketing new, more fully featured fonts. A good part of the problem is the hegemony of the English language. Perhaps pulling the plug on Type 1 fonts will prove to be a boon to font sales and the embrace of new formats, including VF.
0 -
I think that these people with huge libraries of Type 1 fonts are a fairly small chunk of the market, however.
Moreover, the migration away from Type 1 would only help variable font sales if the old Type 1 fonts in question had variable-font equivalents. I think that is a pretty small minority of Type 1 fonts out there. With big foundries from the Type 1 era like Monotype (and its sub brands) and Adobe not offering many of their classic fonts as variable fonts, it seems there is no such route available.0 -
Craig Eliason said:Would it work to have a foundry or reseller site on which the customer could dial up the exact setting they wanted and then download a corresponding static font? Would foundries see such a download as fairly priced if it were at the same price point as current static single fonts?1
-
I have a bit of a meta-question about this conversation - why is it framed around the web - because of the importance of "compress"? isn't "compress" on the web a bit of a lost cause, or at least a cause that will never re-gain the ground it had before cache partitioning was widely implemented? if I understand it right, it used to be the case that if I visited one site that uses Open Sans, I'd download it once, and I wouldn't need to download it again on another site pointing to the same binary on the same CDN, and that, for (unrelated-to-fonts) tracking and privacy concerns, this is no longer the case as of about a year ago.on express and finesse, I see the fullest realization of variable fonts (IMO) so far in the hands of typographers, and off the web, specifically the font modulator that Dinamo made with Collins for the SF Symphony. you can accomplish this without VF, but it never would have happened that way. still hoping for After Effects support. Rob Stenson's Coldtype library is an endeavor that shows a lot of the promise of VF in motion.1
-
@jeremy tribby Thanks for pointing out the examples of motion typography by Collins/Dinamo. The link in your post appears to have an empty URL, though, so adding here:
COLLINS and Dinamo make the classical contemporary in their responsive identity for SF Symphony — The Brand Identity (the-brandidentity.com)
0 -
ah, sorry, not sure what happened there. it's this tool in particular — assistive to the designer — that I find very compelling
0 -
Tell us more about that tool. You've linked to a .gif showing things it can do. I see Collins and Dinamo names on it. Is this a private tool they made for the SFSO project? Something available to others?0
-
Kris Sowersby said:@Peter Constable wrote:To prepare, I spoke with a number of different people involved in type to get their perspectives, and one of the biggest recurring themes was that it seems more education is needed as to how variable fonts can be useful. But in discussing that further with people, a different thought came out, that perhaps we haven't yet clearly understood a set of distinct benefits and use cases, and what would be needed to succeed in each case.You’ve had about 50 replies in this thread from different perspectives about why we’re not hearing much about VF on the web. I don’t think anyone has said “the problem is more education”. That’s fine to say, but who is expected to deliver this education? Who will be receiving this education? I kinda get the feeling type designers/foundries are expected to educate our customers, but please correct me if I’m wrong!
The way I see it, the Compress benefit is only really interesting to people who already care about file-size budgets.
The majority of people purchasing retail fonts do not, I expect, care at all about file-size budgets!
If, often a big if, they have developer colleagues, though, they may have heard about the topic from time to time. When developer colleagues do exist, they can enforce restrictions on the graphic designers' type choices, such that the designers might wish to use 3 or 4 weights of a type family but end up only being "allowed" to use 1 or 2.
And then it can get interesting to those (small minority of typical retail text type) customers, because they can now say, "well, if we were allowed 2 weights, now we can get a variable font with a weight axis that has the filesize similar to 2 weights but provides the equivalent range of 6 or even 9."
This is a fairly nuanced argument, and so, yes, requires some education of corporate designer-developer teams. All that "education" means is, I think, simply reading about case studies of people in this role who have gone through this kind of scenario; perhaps with interactive playgrounds which allow the same story to be told - like https://variablefonts.typenetwork.com/examples/families/file-size-benefits - as part of font checkout processes or digital specimens.And begs the question… is the main beneficiary [of vf] actually Google Fonts and others who serve fonts at scale?
I think its easy to talk at cross purposes about variable fonts; it is a method to achieve some goals, not a goal in itself, and often clarity can be gained by talking more specifically about the benefits, or even concretely about specific axes.
The Compress benefit is by definition about taking pre-vf styles and packing them into axes; The vast majority of existing styles in a family are a set of weight styles, which can usually be packed efficiently into a wght axis, since they are typically drawn as 2 or 3, maybe 4 interpolation masters, with very few glyphs not interpolation compatible across that set; some exceptions are common though, like say the dollar sign which jumps from one form used at the lighter end of the axis with a bar all the way through, to another along the heavier end of the axis where the spine isn't competing with the bar for counterform space, as the bar is instead two nubs at the top and bottom. OpenType 1.8 provides an rvrn feature to encode such jumps as glyph substitutions along an axis; and without that, as shown in Skia, some clever point placement allows the same end result.
So, the technology enables replacing an OpenType 1.7 family (say 18 files, 9 romand and 9 italic) with an OpenType 1.8 family (say 2 files, 1 roman and 1 italic, each with a wght axis) and, in theory, there should be no difference at all to the end user, especially in applications like MS Word which don't afford users a way to specify axis values, only named styles. The only difference is the file size on disk, or on the wire. Visually, there should be no difference.
Besides variable fonts, in recent years anyone who cares to look at can see the Google Fonts team has been closely involved in the initiation and development of WOFF2, seeding interest in the wider implementation of unicode-range, and are now working on the latest W3C Fonts Working Group effort called "incremental font transfer" (sort of web font streaming; w3.org/TR/IFT is the current working draft, published just recently in September, and w3.org/TR/PFE-evaluation was published about a year before that an explains why this is useful). But IFT hasn't really launched yet: There's no web server or stable browser release with out of the box support, although there are demo pages if you dig into it.
These three W3C efforts had (per https://developers.googleblog.com/2015/02/smaller-fonts-with-woff-20-and-unicode.html), or, are expected to have, a large impact on file size budgets.
But there is absolutely zero difference in terms of pixels-on-eyeballs with all 4 compression techniques: woff2, unicode-range, incremental font transfer, and the wght axis.
As Behdad has disclosed in loud public complaints in the last 18 months, prior to the public announcement at ATypI in 2016, myself nor anyone else then on the Google Fonts team had any involvement in the development of OpenType 1.8.0; he and Sacha were part of a completely separate team internally, and the initial development of VF was done in a small closed-door space to which no one from the GF team was invited.
But after that, the GF team has commissioned various foundries to update static font families in the GF library into variable fonts. It turns out not to be very easy, especially when the static fonts have good manual hinting, and I commissioned https://googlefonts.github.io/how-to-hint-variable-fonts to help more foundries learn how to hint VFs well. But today over 15% of the families in the GF library are variable, per https://fonts.google.com/?vfonly=true : 208 variable font families now in fonts.google.com of the 1,334 total.
As these projects are completed, the GF team has been fairly quietly shipping those as direct in-place replacements, and very little has been said about it by the public in response. That is, I think, a sign of success, because if people were noticing the switcharoony, it would indicate that something had regressed.
As Marc pointed out, the daily usage of variable fonts on the web has jumped up, but per https://almanac.httparchive.org/en/2020/fonts this might be entirely attributable to Google Fonts updating a handful of the most popular families.
So, thinking only of the Compress benefit, then sure, I think its fairly obvious that Google Fonts has the biggest web fonts bandwidth bill in the world. One might suppose then that the Google Fonts team would care more than anyone else about file size budgets, given their steady stream of investments in various kinds of web font compression techniques.
Well, then, is GF the main beneficiary of any web font compression technique? I think the answer is the same, in all 4 cases.
In your case, I suppose the closest you could get would be to survey customers who had licensed 2+ weights of a family for web use, and ask them if they would like a new-compression-format package of what they already had, with a now smaller file size, yes/no.
I wonder what the response would be... and would those who said yes be interested in purchasing an upgrade to that package?
In this discussion, file size benefits have been mentioned—that's compress. There's also been mention of "novelty" fonts; those fall within the express use cases. And there was also discussion of careful typography using, e.g., optical sizing—that's finesse.If we were to perhaps give a percentage weighting to the compress/express/finesse benefit trifecta, how do we think it would land? Based on @Dave Crossland’s comment here:If you're self-hosting a few static fonts on a little zero-million-views blog, that compress benefit won't matter, but when you're serving the world's most used typefaces, it all adds upAnd historical, pre-VF font sales and observation, would it be something like:- Compress 92%
- Express 5%
- Finesse 3%
I apologize because that's the opposite order that I see, and didn't meant to imply that. In fact I'd hazard a guess its more like this:- Compress 3%
- Express 27%
- Finesse 70%
To go fish isn't even all that interesting; its basically just OpenType alternates that you can animate or fine tune.
But to go figure, that is, I think worth a lot, to a lot of people: Time saved with better output from defaults, reading experience improved in various conditions.
If Font Bureau and I are successful in realizing the value of finessed typography with variable fonts, then one indicator will be your customers asking you if your fonts can do what theirs can do.
Or maybe you'll be asking them if they want to be able to do these thing with your fonts instead of theirs5 -
Peter Constable said:Tell us more about that tool. You've linked to a .gif showing things it can do. I see Collins and Dinamo names on it. Is this a private tool they made for the SFSO project? Something available to others?I am not privy to the details / assume it is proprietary. Dinamo mentioned creating it in their newsletter about half way down the page here:based on the UI shown, I would guess it parametrizes the generation of static imagesthere's also a lovely web demo with sound as an input that they put together with the font, which I think was just for fun: https://symphosizer.wearecollins.com/(Tangentially, the Coldtype Python library I mentioned in another comment has some great potential for sound as well: this video was produced with this code)0
-
1
-
Dave Crossland said:3
-
Fonts In Use is tracking websites that use variable fonts. There are 25 in the collection so far. Of course, they are primarily portfolio sites or otherwise related to design. As is expected with any new tech, the first users will be within the field itself.
I think it’s kinda funny to see folks expecting VF fonts to be all over the web already. It’s still relatively early in the grand scheme of things! Every new format takes time for broad adoption, especially in mainstream industries with slow-moving corporate entities. It’s just over 5 years since the format was first announced. For comparison, OpenType was announced in 1996; you couldn’t even get an OT font on the retail market until 2001; and we didn’t see broad foundry adoption until 2005. Even then, only two apps fully supported the format.9 -
Matthew Smith said:Dave Crossland said:1
-
Speaking of education/marketing/evangelizing, Monotype is partnering with the creative director of a prominent design firm to talk up the benefits of variable fonts for brands.1
-
Marc Oxborrow said:Speaking of education/marketing/evangelizing, Monotype is partnering with the creative director of a prominent design firm to talk up the benefits of variable fonts for brands.1
-
They allow registration using an msn.com address.
I'll be curious to see what they have to say.0 -
Thomas Phinney said:Interesting that they disallow registrations from @gmail.com addresses, with a “business emails only” message!5
Categories
- All Categories
- 43 Introductions
- 3.7K Typeface Design
- 798 Font Technology
- 1K Technique and Theory
- 617 Type Business
- 444 Type Design Critiques
- 541 Type Design Software
- 30 Punchcutting
- 136 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 83 Technique and Theory
- 53 Lettering Critiques
- 483 Typography
- 301 History of Typography
- 114 Education
- 68 Resources
- 498 Announcements
- 79 Events
- 105 Job Postings
- 148 Type Releases
- 165 Miscellaneous News
- 269 About TypeDrawers
- 53 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 116 Suggestions and Bug Reports