![]() The AFDKO also contains useful technical documentation and some example font source material. These command line programs will allow you to build an OpenType font from an existing font, verify the contents of the font, and proof the font on screen or on paper. It does not offer tools for designing or editing glyphs. This release of the Adobe Font Development Kit for OpenType (AFDKO) contains a set of tools used to make OpenType fonts by adding the OpenType-specific data to a TrueType or Type1 font. Plus, it's free to all users, all the time, and you really can't beat that price.Adobe Font Development Kit for OpenType (AFDKO) Overview Adobe Font Development Kit for OpenType (AFDKO) Overview 1. That being said, Google Web Fonts takes the win here, largely because it is faster, easier to implement and more flexible than TypeKit. The WinnerĪdobe TypeKit is certainly a top-notch service, and I think most designers would agree that it has a superior collection of font choices for users. Although Google Web Fonts also features an easy-to-use interface, TypeKit has the superior search capabilities, which makes it much quicker and easier to find the font you want, ultimately increasing efficiency for designers. Browser InterfaceĪs with all Adobe products, TypeKit provides users with a sleek, simple and intuitive interface for browsing, selecting and using fonts. For many designers, this is an essential feature that saves them a lot of stress in the development process. Google Web Fonts, on the other hand, lets all users download fonts locally (for free), meaning they can send their clients accurate (or close enough) mockups of the site for approval before they begin building it. With TypeKit, users are not able to download fonts locally to test out on their mockups instead, they have to add a font to a domain and then work on typography during the site development phase. The big difference here is the actual speed of using the service when designing a website, where Google unquestionably outshines its competitor. Of course, implementing TypeKit isn't really difficult, either, but it's also not nearly as simple as it is with Google Web Fonts. This difference also makes Google Web Fonts easier to implement (it's just a copy-and-paste process). Google Web Fonts is a much smaller, more lightweight solution than TypeKit, meaning it tends to work quicker and with less downtime than its counterpart. The Trial membership is free, although very limited, while the others start at a $24.99 a year and go up from there. the Personal plan has a monthly page view limit of 50,000). ![]() These different plans (Trial, Personal, Portfolio, Performance and Business) are tailored toward sites based on size and come with a limit on the number of page views the user can register monthly (e.g. TypeKit, on the other hand, requires them to sign up for one of a variety of yearly memberships, each of which provides a different plan with various features that will meet a website's unique needs. ![]() Maybe the best thing that Google Web Fonts has going for it is that it is totally free for all users. Plus, while Google provides over 500 different font choices (an impressive number, for sure), designers can pick from over 700 fonts with TypeKit. This is largely because Google Web Fonts pulls from a variety of open source fonts, while none of the fonts in TypeKit are open source. Most text critics seem to agree that between the two services, Adobe TypeKit provides a higher quality selection of different fonts for users to choose from. But for everyone else, the decision may not be so cut-and-dry in that case, here's a quick comparison of TypeKit and Google Web Fonts that will, hopefully, aid you in making the best possible decision for your work. convenience issue, and for others it may be based on brand loyalty. For some, it may look like it's just a quality vs. While both services offer users a plethora of different fonts that they can implement onto the websites and pages that they're designing, they're otherwise very different. The current battle raging amongst the savviest Web designers and developers is between each enterprise's respective font-as-a-service solution: Adobe's TypeKit and Google Web Fonts. When they do, however, Web professionals are quick to pick sides and stand in staunch defense of their preferred products. Pitting Google against Adobe may sound like the tech industry's version of a clash of titans, but for the most part, the two companies don't overlap too much.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |