Adobe Font Kit / Google Fonts linked or embedded?

[Apalache]

Hey Folks,

I'm investigating the use of selective Fonts - outside of the "usual" or default set and want to avoid making any font into an image file (.gif .jpg .png). The use of the "em" is universal in my quest accepting the standard that 16pts. is the default as is "400" or "100%" for display of one "em".

My question is about success, platform-to-platform, in either embedding or linking to outside encoding options - who is finding ease of use, ease of styling, ease of browser-to-browser similarity?

Thanks for your response (in advance).

[mattster]

Personally, I've never had a problem with Google Fonts. It is a vast library containing soo many free fonts to suit every purpose.

A general font, like Open Sans or Ubuntu, should be able to cover just about any need when it comes to size and formatting. However, some fonts are more decorative and can only really be used in big headers. Achieving the size and display of a Google web font is easy peasy, and looks great. Just a case of selecting a decent font.

In terms of ease of use, there is no comparison. Any noob could get web fonts up and running, simlpy of case of follow the two steps. Both of which copying and pasting code.

Browsers love this stuff, EVEN IE 6 can handle it: case closed. If IE6 can cope, think no further. It also works on mobile decvices etc, so you have complete freedom and flexibility. If in the rare instance webfonts are not supported, the next item in your CSS will be selected (so no big panic).

The sheer beauty of using CDNs/Hosted libraries is that they're bloody powerful. Google spend millions on super-fast servers to deliver them soo quickly (and it also reduces your bandwidth etc.)

So overall, Google web fonts are pro, and well worth looking at. Look here for the official FAQ.

[almostbob]

Was gonna rave about google fonts linked, but Mattster put it better than I would
superfast, works on everything, and very likely the font will already be in the cache,