<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ❡ Sticking with a typeface</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nicewebtype.com/notes/2009/12/11/sticking-with-a-typeface/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nicewebtype.com/notes/2009/12/11/sticking-with-a-typeface/</link>
	<description>For the betterment of typographic style and practice.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:52:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Will</title>
		<link>http://nicewebtype.com/notes/2009/12/11/sticking-with-a-typeface/#comment-1770</link>
		<dc:creator>Will</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:46:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nicewebtype.com/notes/?p=1719#comment-1770</guid>
		<description>While I currently don&#039;t use @font-face on my site (although I used to until today), Museo Sans (exljbris) has always worked for me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I currently don&#8217;t use @font-face on my site (although I used to until today), Museo Sans (exljbris) has always worked for me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Brown</title>
		<link>http://nicewebtype.com/notes/2009/12/11/sticking-with-a-typeface/#comment-1715</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:28:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nicewebtype.com/notes/?p=1719#comment-1715</guid>
		<description>Veda, presently there are some rendering issues that even well-made typefaces cannot overcome. If you use Twitter, you should follow &lt;a href=&quot;http://twitter.com/typerendering&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Type Rendering&lt;/a&gt; for news about advances in this area.

As for selecting great fonts for use with @font-face, I&#039;ve been working on a small, valuable resource — coming in early 2010.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Veda, presently there are some rendering issues that even well-made typefaces cannot overcome. If you use Twitter, you should follow <a href="http://twitter.com/typerendering" rel="nofollow">Type Rendering</a> for news about advances in this area.</p>
<p>As for selecting great fonts for use with @font-face, I&#8217;ve been working on a small, valuable resource — coming in early 2010.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Veda Williams</title>
		<link>http://nicewebtype.com/notes/2009/12/11/sticking-with-a-typeface/#comment-1706</link>
		<dc:creator>Veda Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:04:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nicewebtype.com/notes/?p=1719#comment-1706</guid>
		<description>As far as I can tell, you&#039;re selecting well-hinted fonts off of TypeKit. Do we have a sense of which fonts play well, other than the ones you&#039;ve suggested here? (I&#039;ve been following &lt;a href=&quot;http://getsatisfaction.com/typekit/topics/lovely_on_mac_poor_rendering_on_pc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this discussion&lt;/a&gt;, and it appears to have ground to a halt). 

I&#039;m looking into fonts that resemble VistaSans that play well on Mac and PC using TypeKit, for use on sites like this one: http://www.yesmagazine.org/. We had to use sIFR in this case, due to licensing issues, and I&#039;d really love to find a &quot;workhorse&quot; font similar to it that will play happily.

Do you have any thoughts here? Any good resources you could point me to? As far as I have been able to determine, FontFont foundry on TypeKit is well-hinted, but beyond that I&#039;m in the dark.

Thanks in advance,

- Veda</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As far as I can tell, you&#8217;re selecting well-hinted fonts off of TypeKit. Do we have a sense of which fonts play well, other than the ones you&#8217;ve suggested here? (I&#8217;ve been following <a href="http://getsatisfaction.com/typekit/topics/lovely_on_mac_poor_rendering_on_pc" rel="nofollow">this discussion</a>, and it appears to have ground to a halt). </p>
<p>I&#8217;m looking into fonts that resemble VistaSans that play well on Mac and PC using TypeKit, for use on sites like this one: <a href="http://www.yesmagazine.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.yesmagazine.org/</a>. We had to use sIFR in this case, due to licensing issues, and I&#8217;d really love to find a &#8220;workhorse&#8221; font similar to it that will play happily.</p>
<p>Do you have any thoughts here? Any good resources you could point me to? As far as I have been able to determine, FontFont foundry on TypeKit is well-hinted, but beyond that I&#8217;m in the dark.</p>
<p>Thanks in advance,</p>
<p>- Veda</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Brown</title>
		<link>http://nicewebtype.com/notes/2009/12/11/sticking-with-a-typeface/#comment-1701</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:54:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nicewebtype.com/notes/?p=1719#comment-1701</guid>
		<description>Good point, Wouter. It&#039;s been easy to take for granted the core web fonts we&#039;ve been using for years. They&#039;re really well made when you compare them with some of today&#039;s &lt;code&gt;@font-face&lt;/code&gt; alternatives. And as you say, we&#039;ve grown accustomed to them – and so have folks browsing websites.

In fact, initially, when I find even a &lt;em&gt;well&lt;/em&gt;-hinted typeface (like the new &lt;a href=&quot;http://typekit.com/foundries/fontfont&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FontFont Typekit&lt;/a&gt; faces) being used on a site, it&#039;s kind of a shock because it doesn&#039;t feel &lt;em&gt;normal&lt;/em&gt;. Don&#039;t get me wrong, they look incredible ... but we&#039;re going to have that cultural double-take for a while before things settle down.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good point, Wouter. It&#8217;s been easy to take for granted the core web fonts we&#8217;ve been using for years. They&#8217;re really well made when you compare them with some of today&#8217;s <code>@font-face</code> alternatives. And as you say, we&#8217;ve grown accustomed to them – and so have folks browsing websites.</p>
<p>In fact, initially, when I find even a <em>well</em>-hinted typeface (like the new <a href="http://typekit.com/foundries/fontfont" rel="nofollow">FontFont Typekit</a> faces) being used on a site, it&#8217;s kind of a shock because it doesn&#8217;t feel <em>normal</em>. Don&#8217;t get me wrong, they look incredible &#8230; but we&#8217;re going to have that cultural double-take for a while before things settle down.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wouter Bos</title>
		<link>http://nicewebtype.com/notes/2009/12/11/sticking-with-a-typeface/#comment-1700</link>
		<dc:creator>Wouter Bos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:06:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nicewebtype.com/notes/?p=1719#comment-1700</guid>
		<description>Although &lt;code&gt;@font-face&lt;/code&gt; is really freeing designers I certainly believe that we will be going to appreciate a font like Arial. Not only because we got accustomed to it since we were stuck with it for so many years, but also because it&#039;s such a versatile font compared to some other fonts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although <code>@font-face</code> is really freeing designers I certainly believe that we will be going to appreciate a font like Arial. Not only because we got accustomed to it since we were stuck with it for so many years, but also because it&#8217;s such a versatile font compared to some other fonts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

