Debate:Should we use @font-face for sigs?
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
|
Recently, Nx pointed out that we could use CSS to support unusual fonts on compliant browsers, rather than using images. What is the mob's opinion of this? Wisest drug Hoover! 10:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't care if it used for sigs or tables or just making a page pretty, if the option is available we can use it. - π 10:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- As long as it doesn't break anything - if you don't have a "compliant" browser, for instance - then I'm all for it.
gnostic 10:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- People without a "compliant" browser will just see aerial font as boring normal. - π 10:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking of it perhaps substituting for something silly or a huge font, but if it defaults to arial or similar I fail to see where the issue or any potential negatives are. gnostic 10:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Jeeves complained that my sig defaulted to a bunch of random letters, which I can't see the problem with. Wisest drug Hoover! 10:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, as Nx pointed out before withdrawing, the major disadvantages are the bandwith for downloading the font and clutter to Common.css. Of course, the major blows to performance here are disabling of the parser cache by random sigs and the overhead of using templates. Wisest drug Hoover! 11:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Templates and random generators... I'll whistle innocently and walk away, then... gnostic 11:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Question: is my sig causing problems? I made it from a free license font called something like Sex Pistols. If I had to I could convert, but I wonder if downloading the whole font is more bandwidth intensive than having a small image. Someone help me understand and I will whatever's best.
22:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Question: is my sig causing problems? I made it from a free license font called something like Sex Pistols. If I had to I could convert, but I wonder if downloading the whole font is more bandwidth intensive than having a small image. Someone help me understand and I will whatever's best.
- Templates and random generators... I'll whistle innocently and walk away, then...
- Well, as Nx pointed out before withdrawing, the major disadvantages are the bandwith for downloading the font and clutter to Common.css. Of course, the major blows to performance here are disabling of the parser cache by random sigs and the overhead of using templates. Wisest drug Hoover! 11:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Jeeves complained that my sig defaulted to a bunch of random letters, which I can't see the problem with. Wisest drug Hoover! 10:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking of it perhaps substituting for something silly or a huge font, but if it defaults to arial or similar I fail to see where the issue or any potential negatives are.
- People without a "compliant" browser will just see aerial font as boring normal. - π 10:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- As long as it doesn't break anything - if you don't have a "compliant" browser, for instance - then I'm all for it.
A vote[edit]
Right, I think a simple vote is in order.
- Support. Most of the complaints are about cluttering of Common.css, and I don't find that argument valid. Performance is hardly an issue, given the way we use other tricks with significant overheads. Wisest drug Hoover! 12:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I support using common.css for custom fonts, regardless of use. - π 22:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)