Web Typography?
Out of context: Reply #3
- Started
- Last post
- 10 Responses
- Continuity0
I know where he's coming from. We all like fantastic typesetting.
But this is the fucking web we're talking about, and it's not a motherfucking piece of paper.
Reading this makes me fucking cringe, actually. In the same way web designers cringe whenever their print-background art director comes into the room.
In fact, I've been there.
Print art director: 'You've got rivers in this paragraph of copy. In fact, you've got rivers all over the website.'
Me: 'Too bad. Deal with it.'
What makes me furious about this article is the misrepresentation of web typesetting as being on equal footing with its print opposite number.
For one, neither HTML nor CSS have ever been friendly to type. It took us forever to get some fucking basics included in either of those specs, like line height and columns (and I still don't trust columns cross-browser). Missing in action: FUCKING KERNING.
The other thing that makes me see red with this article is the fact he seems to think that once you've flowed copy onto a page with his   hacks, it's 'Hey presto, job done'. Well, guess what: it's not job done, you fucking cock-nosher. Web agencies sell clients a CMS with their website, and do you seriously think Dear Client will have any time or inclination to implement your fucking hack?
Fucking hell.
- You can eliminate rivers without fancy type tricks or anything.monospaced
- Not totally true about kerning. CSS 'letter-spacing' property. There is also the CSS3 'font-kerning' propertyETM
- As I understand it, font-kerning is one of those not-too-commonly implemented things cross-browser.Continuity
- I could be wrong, though.Continuity