---
title: The mess of web font services
teaser: Summary of the landscape around web fonts.
tags: design,typography
author: Kyle Fiedler
published_on: 2010-06-07
---
Over the last year, we have seen a mass adoption of the [\@font]-[face]
[property] by all of the major browser vendors. Most type foundries won't
license their typefaces to be used on the web because there is no openly
supported closed font file type. They all fear that their files will be widely
distributed for free and their licensing system will fail. This obstacle has
lead to several font hosting providers. Each service seems to have a different
take on how to deliver type on the web and how to charge for it.
## [Typekit](https://typekit.com/)
As the major player in the market, they've set a standards for delivering fonts
online. Their font library is huge; with typefaces from FontFont, Underware,
TypeTogether, and P22. They even got FontFont to rehint their fonts for the
screen, which were hinted for print.
Their engineers have done a ton to
eliminate [FOUT](http://paulirish.com/2009/fighting-the-font-face-fout/) (flash of
un-styled text) to deliver your fonts as fast as possible.The javascript makes
the service easy to use but fonts should only have to rely on CSS to render them. They consistently
update their font files and their code to comply with all the fun quirks of
browsers and you don't have to do a thing. Since you don't actually own a
license and files, you lose the ability to use the typefaces in anything other
than a browser.
Their Browser Samples tool lets you see the typeface rendered in different
sizes, in different browsers, in different operating systems. Otherwise you
would be testing the type rendering like you do your CSS but have less control. It comes in really handy to say
the least.
Their yearly rate might be hard for you to sell to your client or boss and many
designers are used to paying for a font license upfront and are hesitant to have
a yearly font cost. You'll be relying on them to host your files for you.
## [Font Squirrel](http://www.fontsquirrel.com/) & [Font Spring](http://www.fontspring.com/)
Font Squirrel promotes 100% free fonts for @font-face embedding. Their biggest
resource is their @font-face kit and generator which is pure awesome. They
generate all the pesky files types for you and produces the @font-face code
[recommended by Paul Irish](http://paulirish.com/2010/font-face-gotchas/) for
you.
Free comes with a cost and in this case its quality. Some of the typefaces have
horrible hinting and kerning tables or none at all. Some are just horrible.
There are some diamonds in the rough though (see
[Exljbris](http://www.fontsquirrel.com/foundry/Exljbris) and [The League of
Moveable Type](http://www.fontsquirrel.com/foundry/The-League-of-Moveable-Type))
if you pick well.
Font Spring is the paid version of Font Squirrel. They offer a more traditional
way to buy a font license but for the web. The quality of fonts on Font Spring
are a bit higher and none are very expensive.
In both cases you get total control over the files, how they are hosted, used
and implemented, as long as you stay within the license.
## [Fontdeck](http://fontdeck.com/)
Fontdeck is another hosted solution, like Typekit, that was recently released
out of a closed beta. Its annual charge is for the font that you select for a
domain. Not for the whole library. They only have a select few foundries
represented and a small library but I assume that they will be getting more on
board soon.
## [Google Font Directory](http://www.google.com/fonts)
Google recently released its hosted solution with the help of Typekit. Their
collection is relatively small and doesn't have much that I would call usable.
Right now all of the typefaces are free Creative Commons typefaces including
typefaces commissioned by Google (Droid, Droid Serif). It will be interesting to
see what steps Google takes in this direction, if they take any.
## [Typotheque](http://www.typotheque.com/webfonts)
A small foundry that offers a full (both web and print) and web license for
their typefaces. They host their files but use CSS to deliver them to your site. They even will serve font files
with selective character sets so that you save on download speed. You'll be
relying on their cloud hosting to keep their files up an you have no control on
the way that they implement the @font-face.
## [Web FontFonts](http://www.fontshop.com/fontlist/n/web_fontfonts/)
After teaming up with Typekit, FontFont is delivering their typefaces independent
of Typekit. FontFont is one of the more forward thinking foundries, having
already started hinting some of their collection for screen use. They are
offering the font web license only for EOT (IE only) and WOFF (Right now only
supported by Firefox 3.6 but hopefully more in the future) which could be
segmenting out a bunch of your traffic.
## [Type Front](http://typefront.com/)
Type Front hosts your already purchased font files that have a web license for
them. It then gives you the ability to control what domains that you want the
font to be distributed to with ease. It then produces the needed file formats
and gives you the CSS that you will need to put into the head of your site.
## [Kernest](http://kernest.com/)
A free open source hosted solution. If you don't want to pay for Typekit or try
using @font-face yourself this would be a good option.
## [Fonts Live], [Webink], and [Webfonts]
All are hosted solutions run by Acender, Extensis and Monotype respectively. Each
has been a big player in the desktop publishing world and now trying to get
their hands in on the web. I've yet to try any of them but I'm sure each
will have a large library but
[limiting](http://www.fonts.com/Legal/MI-EULA.htm) implementation.
> I can tell you that the folks at Extensis, Ascender, and Monotype are
> genuinely happy and enthusiastic about providing fonts for the web. But
> certainly they won’t be quick to point out that the delivery system for those
> fonts is crafted within the constraints of a clever but [hacky] DRM-like
> [structure].
[Web Fonts at the Crossing] by Richard Fink
## Best foot forward
If you feel comfortable hosting and delivering your own fonts look to Font
Spring and Font Squirrel. Otherwise, Typekit seems to still be a few steps ahead
of the other competition. The best questions to ask are what kind of control you
want over the files, what kind of hassle are you willing to deal with and how
you plan on selling it to your clients. Richard Fink has also [created a
checklist](http://www.alistapart.com/articles/fonts-at-the-crossing/) for hosted
font solutions. Like almost everything else, it really depends on what's best for
you and your situation.
[@font]: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/cssatten
[face]: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/fonts-at-the-crossing/
[Fonts Live]: http://www.fontslive.com/
[hacky]: http://www.zeldman.com/2010/04/13/opera-loves-my-web-font/#comment-54284
[property]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/css/@font-face
[structure]: http://blog.typekit.com/2009/07/21/serving-and-protecting-fonts-on-the-web/
[Web Fonts at the Crossing]: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/fonts-at-the-crossing/
[Webfonts]: http://webfonts.fonts.com/
[Webink]: http://www.webink.com/