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 wanna develop a little paint-program (SVG business-card designer) which should be hosted in the cloud, im trying to get my head around what technology i should settle on.
Possible answers as i see it would be SilverLight, Flash, Java, HTML5.
I would be happy to avoid SilverLight and Flash for several reasons, HTML5 im worried about due to compatibillity with ex. IE browser ? Java i dont know enough about to understand if that would be the right way.
One example im quite impressed about is :
http://code.google.com/p/svg-edit/
And looking to somewhat hit the same as that, but again IE explorer ( which is what majority uses ) is an issue here too regarding SVG format.
I might be able to live with only ex. IE9, but wondering what you guys would think would be the right approach/language/framework/technology to make such an application ?
Thanks alot.
For a business card designer, you should be concentrating on font and page layout, in which case you need to use an online editor. There are lots of free WYSIWYG editirors that run from web pages and there are soe very sophisticated ones like FCKeditor. FCK also includes everything that you need for uploading images and maintaining a clipart gallery. I beleieve that it's available for both Windows and Apache web servers and it doesn't require admin permission to install, once the upload folders have write permissions.
I have been using Calibri font in my web pages for too long using #font-face but the thing is including such big font file reduces web page loading speed drastically! But I have seen that a font in ttf format is more bigger than the one in opt or open-type format (Am I right or not?). That's why I want a font converter. Can anyone provide me a one or can give me a link to get it. Please help me out.
Thanks in advance!
I've been having wonderful success using Google's Web Fonts They don't give you a a million options font-wise, but they're loaded off of Google's screaming fast CDN which undoubtedly will deliver them much faster than 99% of the hosting solution us mere mortals have access to. Since they are served from the edge off a different host than the rest of your content, the load advantage should be quite impressive.
As easy as it is to find a font, copy, and paste, I've had little reason to fight with anything else.
I stumbled on a site yesterday and forgot to bookmark the url. I'm stumped though because google is not helping me trace my steps. The site was basically a text to image converter for preserving your specific fonts in the browser. What made this one unique was that the text was fully selectable, however what was being displayed was the image that was generated using the desired font.
They required a subscription to their service so I disregarded it and moved on. Turns out I left too quickly and I'm interested in trying the product now. Does anyone know what website I stumbled upon, and if they have experience with it?
BTW, I'd recognize the link if I saw it. It was something like freemefont.com or something like that.
Thanks
You may mean cufón: Take a look here. It's at least something like you describe, you upload fonts, and it generates javascript to render the same or as close as possible I guess, as those fonts would.
I'm using TypeKit for that - they don't really create images, but rather supply a font via CSS.
Here's a list of commercial webfont service:
fontspring
kernest
typekit
typefront
typotheque
if it's not one of these you stumbled on you can try the free alternatives (harder to setup) listed in the other answers.
Ill add to the (free) ones already proposed a php based one:
PCDTR
Do you mean Facelift? http://facelift.mawhorter.net/
Another alternative, which I'm pretty sure you don't mean, is sIFR: http://wiki.novemberborn.net/sifr/
these links should help you out
link1
link2
Although I've done programming, I'm not a programmer. I've recently agreed to coordinate getting a Website up for a club. The resources are--me, who has done Web content maintenance (putting content into HTML and ColdFusion templates via a gatekeeper to the site itself; doing simple HTML and XML coding); a serious Web developer who does database programming, ColdFusion, etc., and talks way over the heads of the rest of us; two designers who use Dreamweaver; the guy who created the original (and now badly broken) site in Front Page and wants to use Expression Web; and assorted other club members who are even less technically inclined.
What we need up first is some text and graphics (a gorgeous design has been created in Dreamweaver), some links (including to existing PDF newsletters for download), and maybe hooking up an existing Blogspot blog. Later (or earlier if it's not hard), we may add mouseover menus to the links, a gallery, a calendar, a few Mapquest hotlinks, and so on.
My question--First, is there any real problem with sticking with HTML and jpegs for the initial site? Second, for the "later" part of the site development, what's the simplest we can go with? Third, are there costs in doing this the simple way that will make us regret it down the road? Also, is there a good site/resource where I can learn more about this from a newbie perspective?
If you don't require any dynamic content, heck, if you don't plan on editing the content more than once a week, I'd say stick to basic HTML.
Later, you'd probably want a basic, no-fuss and easily installable CMS. The brand really depends on the platform (most likely PHP/Rails/ASP), but most of them can be found by typing " CMS" into Google. Try prefixing it with "free" or "open source" if you want.
I'm pretty sure you can do all this for absolutely free. Most PHP and Ruby CMS's are free and web hosting is free/extremely cheap if you're not demanding.
And last/best tip: Find someone who has done this before, preferably more than once. He'll probably set you up so you never have to look at anything more complicated than a WYSIWYG editor.
Plain old HTML is fine, just as long as you don't use tags like blink and marquee.
I personally love tools like CityDesk.
And I'm not just plugging Joel. (There are others out there in this class I'm sure.) The point is they make making a static website very easy:
The structure is just a filesystem structure
pages have templates to consolidate formatting
all resources are contained in one file
easy and fast Preview and Publish functions
For a dynamic collaborative site, I would just install one of many open source CMSs available on shared hosting sites.
If you're familiar with html/javascript basics I'd look into a CMS - wordpress, drupal, joomla, nuke, etc. All of these are free. Very often your web hosting company will install one of these by default which takes all of the hard part out of your hands. Next is just learning to customize the system and there's tons of docs out there for any of those systems.
All that being said there is noting wrong with good old fashioned html.
In addition to some of the great content management systems already mentioned, consider cms made simple.
It makes it very easy to turn a static site into a content managed site (which sounds like exactly what you might need to do in the future), and the admin area is very easy to use. Our clients have found it much simpler to use than the likes of Joomla.
It's also free and open source.
Good luck!
There's no reason to not go with plain old HTML and JPGs if you don't know any server side scripting languages. Also, once you want to get more advanced, most cheap hosting services have tools that can be installed with one click, and provide things like blogs, photo galleries, bulletin boards (PHPBB), and even content management tools like Joomla.
I had the same problem myself, I was just looking for something really easy to smash together a website quickly. First I went with just plain old HTML, but then I realised a simple CMS would be better.
I went for Wordpress. Wordpress is mostly known as a blogging platform, but in my opinion it is really great as a deadly simple CMS as well.
why not simply use Google pages?
Here is an example of a website I did, takes about 2 hours, easy to maintain (not that I do (-: ) and FREE.
I think that suggesting you mess with HTML for what you need is crazy!
Plain HTML is great, gives you the most control. If you want to make updating a bit easier though, you could use SSI. Most servers have this enabled. It basically let's you attach one file to many pages.
For example, you could have your menu in navigation.html and every page would include this file. That way you wouldn't have to update this one file on every page each time you need to update.
<!--#include virtual="navigation.html" -->
I agree with the other commenters that a CMS might be useful to you, however as I see it, probably a solution like Webby might do it for you. It generates plain HTML pages based on Templates. Think about it as a "webpage preprocessor" which outputs plain HTML files. It has most of the advantages of using a server-based CMS, but without a lot of load on the server, and making it easy for you to change stuff on any of the templates you might use.
It's fine
Rails (or purchase / use a CMS)
Not unless you start becoming crazy-popular
It really depends on what you go with for 2. Rails has a plethora of tutorials on the net and any product you go with will have its own community etc.
To be perfectly honest though, if the dynamic part is someone elses blog and you move the gallery out into flikr you may find that you can actually live with large parts of it being static HTML for a very long time.
If a to Implement a website With User Profiles/Logins, Extensions, Gallery's etc s a Newbi then a CMS like Joomla, Etc are good , but Else if you presently have only Static Content then Its good to go with Good Old HTML, About JPEG , I though Presently Its better to use PNG or GIF as its Less Bulky.
Also About you Query About Shifting to Server Scripts , When you have Database Driven Material or When you have Other Things that Require Advanced Prog Languages , Just use PHP Scripts inside PHP , and Rename teh File as a PHP, Thats IT, No Loss to you HTML Data.....
Do Go Ahead and Launch you Site ......
Dude, you're talking about HTML, obviously you'll be styling your content with CSS. Wait till you run into IE issues and god forbid your client wants ie6 compatibility.
Go with the HTML for now, I'm sure you guys will hack it through. Our prayers are with you.
Personally, I'd never use JPEG images on a website, mainly because of three reasons:
JPEGs often contains artifacts.
Quality is often proportional
with filesize.
Does not support
alpha transparency.
That said, I'd recommend you to use PNGs for images since it's lossless and a 24-bit palette (meaning full colors + alpha transparency). The only quirk is that IE6 and below does not support native alpha for PNGs, however this could be resolved by running a javascript which would fix this issue.
As for designing a website, there's both pros and cons for this. I suggest you read through:
37 Signal's Why We Skip Photoshop
Jeff Croft's Why We Don't Skip Photoshop
As for newbie resources, I'd recommend you flip through the pages at W3 Schools.