I need to use Helvitica font for a client, and I thought we need to purchase the font to be used on the website to have a valid license for commercial work, but I found in this article: https://websitesetup.org/web-safe-fonts-html-css/ that Helvetica is a web safe font and all devices have it already. So do we need to still purchase the Webfont to legally use it on a website?
The point of web safe fonts is that they are likely to be available on a significant number of client computers already.
Since you aren't distributing it, you don't need a license for it.
Related
Let's say you buy webfont on MyFont for use on your website. For example URW Geometric Webfont (https://www.myfonts.com/fonts/urw/geometric/licensing.html).
Naturally you want to display it consistent on all browsers and devices. Webfonts tipicaly look great on MacOS (in all sizes), however there is a different story with Windows. Some characters (like “e”, “d”, “b”) seem to be larger than other characters. See hinting difference - before and after autohinting
I found solution for this issue called autohinting. The process goes like this:
You take .ttf file and apply autohinting to it - replace the existing hinting with the autohinting information. I used tool “ttfautohint”: https://www.freetype.org/ttfautohint/
Next step is to generate other font formats from auto-hinted .ttf file. I used tool https://transfonter.org/
Is this process in accordance to licensing agreement?
It states following:
“You agree not to adapt, modify, alter, translate, convert, or
otherwise change the Licensed Web Fonts, or to create Derivative Works
from the Licensed Web Fonts or any portion thereof."
Source: https://www.myfonts.com/viewlicense.php?lid=1630
I didn’t change font in any way, I just applied to it autohinting information hence better webfont display on Windows.
I want to use the font 'Semplicita Pro' from the site https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-gb/ for my own website project but I can't seem to find the font file on the website. Even if I should be able to get my hands on the file, would it be legal to use the font?
No, this is premium font which could be bought there:
https://www.myfonts.com/fonts/canadatype/semplicita-pro/
This is kind of expensive. Maybe you could use one of the alternatives to this font?
https://www.typewolf.com/google-fonts
I'm looking into using this font from myfonts.com on a website. When you purchase a font from them for use on the web, you are purchasing a one-time license for a certain number of page views per month.
This license is described in more detail here:
https://www.myfonts.com/licensing/webfont/
How would myfonts.com know if I am exceeding my license? If the font is self-hosted, how do they know how many page views I'm getting? Is this some sort of honor-system or am I missing something obvious?
Here's the answer from myfonts.com support:
Webfont licensing is explained here:
https://www.myfonts.com/fonts/exljbris/museo/licensing.html
In the supplied webfont kit that's self hosted, there is CSS. The CSS
includes and #import rule. When its url is read by the browser, it
calls our server, and a pageview is counted.
I need to include Gurmukhi.ttf font which was provided to me. I tried to find answer to my question but found something like this #font-face : converting and displaying a font (CityBlueprint) but no solution.
At first I tred to generate the font on this site
http://www.fontsquirrel.com/tools/webfont-generator
but got the following error "The file gurmukhi.ttf is blacklisted by the Generator. Webfonts from other distributors cannot be regenerated."
Then I used
http://www.font2web.com/
It generated the required data package and I included fonts, how it was shown in demo.html. But nothing happened. By default the browser uses its own fonts, and Gurmukhi are ignored. Interesting thing is that font in demo.html is also ignored by browsers.
Then I was provided another font type Optima.ttc. I have converted it to ttf format.
http://www.fontsquirrel.com/tools/webfont-generator
"Linotype has requested that their font Optima Regular be blacklisted by the Generator. You will not be able to convert this font."
http://www.font2web.com/
Here I only got 2 files and in info.html there was the following:
Sorry, the vendor of Optima nova Regular doesn't allow us to convert this font
But click here to use the Optima nova Regular web font for free
Tip: Click on the purple Sign Up for Free! button and then click on the FREE PLAN link
As I understand both of these files are not free?
This are commercial fonts and you need to purchase atleast the web license in order to use them legally (altough you could always make the .ttf conversion yourself locally without using web generators and avoid the blacklisted check, but this is still not a legal solution and the font is still subject to copyrights).
If you don't have the budget to spend on font license, you could always use a free alternative to Optima Nova - there are similar typefaces available for free - try to search for free alternatives that could suit your design (mind that the alternative font may not be of the same quality and may not support as many glyphs).
With today's modern mobile phones, is it still worth programming the mobile version of your site in WML?
Most mobile browsers even a few years old can manage to do okay in regular HTML. With WML, you are obviously given more control over what is displayed and what isn't with less fear of it not working on a particular device, but today, with all the advancements in mobile browsing (iPhone, Android, etc) is it really best to go this route?
I am wondering if the best option is instead to go with an HTML4 document that has a few more bells-and-whistles than what WML can do, but not quite the glorified super-spectacular AJAXified interface that one might design for a modern desktop browser.
Yes, I know, this is objective and has a lot to do with site audiences and how far I want to extend support. To put a scope to this question, my main concern here is whether foregoing WML for HTML is going to devastate a huge chunk of my audience and leave them completely stranded.
Edit for Dr.Dredel's point: the site would NOT be used by an SMS campaign or anything of the sort. The website is an event booking site for pickup games for hockey. Some users currently browse to it on their mobile phone to sign up for different sessions.
Do both. There's no reason to ignore the browser string and display the same markup for every device. WML is simple enough that you can use template styles (which you should be using already) to provide a custom experience for all your useers, regardless of the device they use.
Those with bare cell phones will get a usable interface that meets their needs, while those with PDA phones get a nicer interface with more options, and those with the iPhone might even get the eye-candy iPhonophiles really bought their phone for.
If you can't do that, for whatever reason, go with the least common denominator to gain the greatest visibility and usage - that's what's going to make your site successfully and useful enough that you can afford to use a real templating system and move towards the ideal state. This is likely WML, although even older phones were ok with very simple HTML, it just has less control and ease of use features.
-Adam
I think the primary problem with this question is that it fails to identify what exactly it is that you're offering your users, which would instruct who, demographically, would find your site.
If your site is arrived at via SMS based links (through some global marketing campaigns) then you need to try to reach the widest possible audience, since almost all phones will allow a user to click within their SMS client and then launch whatever browser option is on the that phone.
If, on the other hand, you have a site which needs to be browsed over to manually, then there's a reasonable expectation that most people simple won't bother on their crappy pseudo browsers, because even the act of inputting the url is a fairly large hassle.
I would say that if you're dealing with option B you're pretty safe just delivering an experience that is tailored for a browser like Netscape 1.1 (just dust off whatever you were doing in 1995 and you're good to go! :)
The vast majority of mobile phone users have a phone that was purchased within the last few years, and any users that have a phone older than that are unlikely to want to use the internet from their mobile. Personally I think you would be better of making a high-end 'AJAXified' site with all the bells and whistles and a standard XHTML-MP site that would be accessible to most users.
You should use XHTML-MP for mobile versions of sites. You'll get better continuity with the non-mobile version and it will work with more (particularly newer) devices