Typography on the web, what's good what's not?

[Barbara B]

As far as using @fontface to load fonts for a web page, I believe it is a very useful tool in a designers toolbox. And as with all tools, it can be used with skill and precision, or ham-handedly to poor and amateurish effect.

Literally millions of sites small (The Xara Xone which serves them locally) and large (The Boston Globe which is served by a CDN) use fontface for headlines and other special text without any performance problems.

These stunning and often award-winning sites wield the fontface tool creatively and effectively. And clean, award winning sites like MENDO or Boozy Cake Company even use fontface for body copy without ill effect.

If a concern about font face performance issues are holding you back, it's really no more of a concern today than loading large graphics, video, Flash, widgets or iframes (Facebook-like buttons, analytics, or adservers for example, can be horrible drags on page loads) page load is affected—and we all use them from time to time.

[angelize]

With the new web designer programs now having the ability to embed fonts, this topic now becomes quite current.

So how many fonts is too many?(assuming here that one is not doing a fonts site as that is a different critter) I think that 3 maybe 4 tops on a site is plenty and I don't think I would use more than 3 very often.

What fonts pair well together?

[Gare]

Web or not web, consider these pairs when laying out an article:

Helvetica for headlines, Times New Roamn for body copy. I've also seen this reversed to good effect.

Futura for headlines, Garamond for body copy.

Lemme think some more of effective pairs of typefaces.

-g-

[mwenz]

...
So how many fonts is too many?(assuming here that one is not doing a fonts site as that is a different critter) I think that 3 maybe 4 tops on a site is plenty and I don't think I would use more than 3 very often.

What fonts pair well together?

Two questions. First Q, I don't think it is much (if at all) different than print as regards how many fonts to use. I can see using 3–4 depending upon the web site.

Second Q. Fonts should convey meaning and I think especially with a web site, structure that fits the design aesthetic. If I design something for print, I think I can get away with being a little more adventurous because someone reading a printed piece is a more or less captive audience. At least more so than the web.

With a web site, there is precious little time to convey the site and its contents to new visitors (returning viewers have made a commitment, so I am disregarding them here). So for me, I need to be clear about the site and its information straight away. Still, it depends on the site and its contents as to what fonts I would pair together. For a business, I would tend to be most conventional (sans serifs for body headings, either serif or sans serif for main title heads, and likely a good readable sans serif for the body).

But that is perhaps just me. Even with print design, I tend towards conventional, conservative lay out and do so with web sites as well.

Take care, Mike

[longlivemedia]

I always stick to what I've stumbled upon one day, to keep typography invisible. A good typography is invisible typography.

[Gare]

Um, your June post, longlivemedia, says that "things", I assume you mean text, must be exciting to the eyes.

And then yesterday you state that typography should be "invisible".

How is something that's invisible be exciting to the eye?

Please elaborate?

Thanks!

Gary