For years the complaints have been filed about fonts on the web. The limitations are strong which leaves only a few typographic choices. This is nothing new. When I first started designing websites, I remember being shocked by the constraints. MS Word could use many more fonts than the web could, and I felt like the internet was a much more evolved place technologically. This was backwards.

As the complaints continue to mount up, various options have slowly started to break down the barriers in recent years. SIFR and Cufón have recently been seen as a solid replacement to the somewhat bulky and antiquated (although not even close to obsolete) method of image replacement.

Enter Typekit (and a whole bunch of other great technologies outside the scope of this article).

Typekit

There have been a few major issues that have prevented us with limited web font options until now. One is the (in)ability of browsers to support something like the @font-face CSS declaration, which is now garnering a lot of support from modern browsers. The other major concern has been font foundries coming to agreement on the best way(s) to license their fonts on the web. Typekit is bridging that gap by hosting fonts from a growing number of foundries. Many of the foundries have been smaller ones until FontFont joined this week. I heard about this from an understated twitter message, but this is huge news.

There has been talk of more fonts on the web, but we are finally reaching a point that may be pivotal. It is already starting, and within a (relatively) short period of time, we could have a rather large set of fonts to choose from when designing new sites.

A landscape of chaos

So where does that put us?

Unfortunately, along with this freedom come a sense of chaos, driven largely by “designers” that don’t know anything about typography and abuse this newly found typographic “ability”. With this new power we, as designers, will need to exercise large amounts of responsibility. Choosing the font that is right for the project will become much more important that it has been in the past.

I agree with the sentiments of Jason Santa Maria in that we are going to see a great abuse of this new ability. However, I am optimistic. The chaos will reign for a period of time, and designers will do all kinds of new tricks, just because they can (does anybody remember the blink tag). I predict though, that when the dust has settled, the good designers will be even more apparent. You will recognize them as the ones using decent typefaces in their design.

The day is coming when fonts on the web will serve to further distinguish great designers from those that don’t know what they are talking about. Typekit is leading the way in what will hopefully be a future full of visually rich websites.

I guess it’s time to really hit the books and start learning about these typefaces and their best uses. We’re gonna need it.

I’ve been challenged by a good friend to combine my love of words, phonetics, and typography. I am going to start taking a word of the day from around the internets, and translating it into a “visual” work of art. Ok, work of art might be stretching it, but I’m trying. I hope it will spark conversation, or at least help my vocabulary.
They are words.. for the moment. So I call them “word of the moment”. Creative… I know.
Here is yesterday’s word of the day from Dictionary.com.
PERSEVERATE

It was another Friday evening, straight after one of those full on corporate mumbo jumbo weeks. You know, the ones where you spend all week being productive and making people happy, but really, you look back and you didn’t make a single creative move all week.
That’s where I was.
Cue the beer.
And the Nikon.
I started walking from our house, camera in hand, looking for something to capture, but seriously, there’s not too much that is overly compelling about completely middle class houses built in the early 1900′s. We’re not talking about gems here, just your normal bungalows.
But right about the time I got to Coatsfield, I began to think it would be interesting to take a picture of every house number on one street- not just the nice looking ones – every single one. So I did.
I was a little timid, so I didn’t get too close. I guess some people think it’s strange to point a camera at their house, snap a shot, then keep on walking- only to do it again. A little over halfway through, one concerned citizen approached me and started his interrogation (quite politely I might add). He said they had three break-ins over the last month.
Um. Sorry good citizens of Coatsfield Ave. I was unaware.

The fruit of my voyeurism? This series of photos. I am still amazed at how diverse the house numbers can be on one single, (seemingly) homogenous, neighborhood block.
Any you particularly like?

803

804

808

814

817

821

826

831

854

867

871

872