[DaiPlusPlus]

At risk of being downvoted, I reject the advice in this article and instead advocate designers sticking to “core fonts” (Tahoma, etc) or CSS’s built-in family names.

I accept that brochure-style websites genuinely benefit from being able to use the corporate identity’s prescribed typeface for prose, but for non-branded content-heavy pages such as blogs and, uh, “content” the actual utility provided is, in this commenter’s opinion, overrated.

A great argument against custom fonts on the web is that the “core fonts” have been designed for the screen, especially low-DPI environments - whereas I imagine a typical latter-day web-designer will be using a Retina-screen on a Mac - causing them to lose empathy for their 96dpi brethren who have to suffer with blurry and misaligned fonts on their webpages that were clearly designed for print, not screen, use.

I filter web fonts in my main Chrome profile and I’m in no hurry to re-enable that functionality.

[stephenr]

I’m actually a fan of using the “system font stack”, so your viewers get a font that’s optimised for their particular device/browser.

For headings/titles where you want a specific font.. maybe some kind of trick with an svg+fallback text?

Web fonts often cause a noticeable delay of unreadable text for me, presumably because of not fantastic latency due to being in Thailand.

[bryanrasmussen]

At the last place we were at the designer used not only a retina screen but also had sight problems meaning he always wore his super sharp glasses that meant he saw everything sharper than anyone else ever did.

It was difficult to explain to him that things he thought looked great would actually be a problem for many people.