It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
posters are now 400×200 on the desktop with no option to view a larger image. I
think this is an effort to unify the interface across all Monotype retail
sites. Until recently, Fonts.com had very wide, low-resolution posters with no click/expand.
Fonts.com currently shows 560×280 banners in 2:1 aspect ratio. Perhaps this is
related to how inefficient the 2:1 format is on mobile devices and social media
feeds. 2:1 aspect ratio posters appear about 30mm high on a phone so they’re
not useful for showing any details about a typeface—just a splash of color and
texture to convey a vibe. If they had stuck with the old 1:1 ratio, the posters
could have served a useful purpose on social media and in their mobile
interface. I think they should have switched to 4:3 ratio a decade ago when it
was obvious that 2:1 ratio wasn’t going to be part of the future. Anyone
who shares on social media or distributes on sites like Creative Market are
already producing both 2:1 ratio and 4:3 ratio anyway. I already have both formats
of all my posters, but it would be a huge burden to ask all foundries to switch
to 4:3 or provide both and MyFonts would be stuck with a site where half the
posters were still in 2:1. This gives distributors with 4:3 posters an advantage.
On Creative Market, they have big posters on each typeface page with social
media share buttons. On the desktop you can click/expand and get huge posters
that fill the browser window as you scroll. That’s why I think MyFonts is
currently diminishing the importance of the poster on the main scroll. Those
posters are still useful for their campaigns so providing high resolution versions
is still worthwhile. But even in those campaigns I’m sure they wish they had the option of 4:3.
I don't know
why but the click expands don’t work on the posters on Fonts.com—I was
sure they worked yesterday but they don’t today. Fonts.com has a solution to the problem of
having two different widths of promo graphics on the same site: a sliding
strip. That allows 2:1, 4:3, or any ratio images to coexist. The Fonts.com
posters aren't very large but at least they're not as tiny as they are on
That’s not to say the Fonts.com site is good. Some
images don’t even load. Sometimes I see images that I’ve removed still showing
up. Even though the images are only 280 pixels high, it’s loading the original
resolution images, in my case 2880×1440, around 4MB per image. I normally supply
seven images per typeface so that’s about 28MB of images each. You'd figure they’d
have a system to reduce the thumbnails to something more manageable. I’m no web
expert but that seems basic. And they still don’t indicate language support
which I think is completely crazy. Am I wrong? Do customers not want to see
which languages are supported? The whole presentation feels amateurish to me,
but I wonder if customers see it differently.
Here’s another issue on MyFonts. When you go to a
single font typeface, it starts you in the Family Packages tab which reads, “Packages
of this family are not sellable. Please check Individual styles.” First of all,
why the capital I? And secondly why would they want the first thing customers
read to be “not sellable”? That tab should be grayed out or hidden. Under
Glyphs there’s an option to choose a style, even though there's only one—why is
this helpful for shoppers? Hiding a page element shouldn’t be that hard.
It’s not like single font typefaces are a rare thing.
Here's my fan theory. I don’t think it’s possible
that the staff at Monotype are unaware that their sites are a wreck. I’m sure
they know—it’s impossible for them not to know this. Monotype downsized their
staff so much that the existing systems couldn't be modified or properly
maintained. New hires discovered that the best solution was to create an
entirely new unified system that would run all the Monotype owned sites. (I
hope so because that’s the only sensible solution I can see) When it’s complete
they’ll nuke the old sites from orbit and start anew. This would explain why
they’re incapable and/or unwilling to fix glaring issues with the current sites.
MyFonts recently switched to smaller posters not because they thought it was
better but because somebody broke something. The new staff is smart but they’re
dealing with 20 years of rat’s nest coding and trying their best to balance
patching up the old sites and committing time to whatever is going to replace
it. I don’t know if any of this theory is true, but if I look at it through
that lens, the problems with their sites make more sense to me. That’s my
armchair quarterback opinion of what’s going on there based on my observations
of changes to the sites since the downsizing event.
Dusan Jelesijevic said:
If I make a car, I won't sell prototypes to customers. I would firstly test it well before going into production. Same goes for their website(s) – they didn't have to change anything till they made proper new website, fully tested in their local environment. We have unfinished product now that's worst then previous version that were functional....
Michael Rafailyk said:
One more issue with a new MyFonts website is the changed font family url address format. And now some of existed external links to the font families are don't work, however all the others old links are successfully redirected to the new address. I submitted a bug ticket to them. Hope it's temporary.The old address example:myfonts.com/fonts/michael-rafailyk/fioritura/The new address example:myfonts.com/collections/fioritura-font-michael-rafailyk
Nick Cooke said:
When is Monotype going to allow us to see MyFonts sales reports again? The ability to see them ended at the end of June with Monotype saying they would be able to be viewed again ‘soon’.