4 ms·

The industry's not quite to the point where you can get rid of text-as-images. @font-face is supported in maybe 50% of browser versions, requires several differ

The industry's not quite to the point where you can get rid of text-as-images. @font-face is supported in maybe 50% of browser versions, requires several different font formats, and even if you get it to work uniformly, you still have to deal with licensing issues. http://caniuse.com/#search=font-face http://caniuse.com/#search=font-face I agree you should prefer text to images of text, but sometimes you can't escape it. EDIT: And I agree that in this particular case, he could've just used appropriately-styled text. :)

JoelSutherland 15y ago
@font-face actually has pretty incredible browser coverage: Safari 5.03, IE 6-9, Firefox 3.6-4, Chrome 8, iOS 3.2-4.2, Android 2.2-2.3, Opera 11 (http://www.fontspring.com/blog/the-new-bulletproof-font-face-syntax http://www.fontspring.com/blog/the-new-bulletproof-font-face...) It does require different file formats, but these can be generated trivially: http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fontface/generator http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fontface/generator
ddagradi 15y ago
@font-face is pretty widespread, but licensing is a many-headed beast, it's true. Typekit, however, has really extensive browser support (http://help.typekit.com/customer/portal/articles/6786-browser-and-os-support http://help.typekit.com/customer/portal/articles/6786-browse...) and, of course, appropriate licensing built in. There's too many great solutions for web typography to have images be an acceptable solution these days.