While that looks really pretty, it's not really useful.
This could have been a great article if they hadn't just gone for the easy eye candy but instead actually discuss the fonts in question?
- name of the font
- style of the font (sans, slab-serif, etc)
- who made the font, what style is it based on, what was the designer's purpose/goal with this font
- what does the author of the article think the font is good for
- how complete is the font, what characters does it support, quite a few of them don't even have most of the basic symbols from lower ASCII, that's pretty important to be aware of or you get unpleasant surprises long after the design is done
- how well is the font kerned? this is probably the worst omission, because the OP is actively misleading on this front, look at the source code and notice the special "kern" classes--and just stop right there and close the tab.
Manual kerning, really? Having to do that before a font looks good pretty much excludes it from any serious consideration for usage as a web font. Utterly worthless!
Imagine explaining to a client you designed a website for, that if they need to add new content to the CMS, they must manually kern the headlines! ... errr ... manually do the whut now?
You have a good point about the manual kerning (not sure what's up with that), but I don't agree with any of your other criticisms. This is basically what typeface catalogs are like: a demo of a particular face.
- name of the font
who cares. click through to find out
- style of the font (sans, slab-serif, etc)
you need someone to tell you that? I don't understand.
- who made the font, what style is it based on, what was the designer's purpose/goal with this font
who cares. click through to find out
- how complete is the font, what characters does it support, quite a few of them don't even have most of the basic symbols from lower ASCII, that's pretty important to be aware of or you get unpleasant surprises long after the design is done
Yes, that information is clearly visible when you click through.
Imagine explaining to a client you designed a website for, that if they need to add new content to the CMS, they must manually kern the headlines! ... errr ... manually do the whut now?
This is helpful feedback. This is a very new project, so I am still iterating on my approach. Over time it will evolve. Maybe in the future you will find it more useful for your needs.
This could have been a great article if they hadn't just gone for the easy eye candy but instead actually discuss the fonts in question?
- name of the font
- style of the font (sans, slab-serif, etc)
- who made the font, what style is it based on, what was the designer's purpose/goal with this font
- what does the author of the article think the font is good for
- how complete is the font, what characters does it support, quite a few of them don't even have most of the basic symbols from lower ASCII, that's pretty important to be aware of or you get unpleasant surprises long after the design is done
- how well is the font kerned? this is probably the worst omission, because the OP is actively misleading on this front, look at the source code and notice the special "kern" classes--and just stop right there and close the tab.
Manual kerning, really? Having to do that before a font looks good pretty much excludes it from any serious consideration for usage as a web font. Utterly worthless!
Imagine explaining to a client you designed a website for, that if they need to add new content to the CMS, they must manually kern the headlines! ... errr ... manually do the whut now?