Typography & Web Design: Why Go Web-Safe
Posted by Seth Alling on February 10th, 2010 in Web Development
I have spent the last few years of my life as strictly a print designer. Even though I began with websites almost fifteen years ago, I felt limited with what I could do. As CSS was just coming out, I switched over to print and figured that I wouldn’t ever really go back to web design. From the looks of where things are at now, I was wrong.
Anyway, through all of my years working with print project, I came to love typography. By altering just one simple typeface, a whole design could be changed. Unfortunately, now that I have returned to web design (no, that is not the unfortunate part), I have been limited to about five typefaces: Arial, Verdana, Times (New Roman,) Georgia, and Courier. Obviously, there are more, but those are just a few.
Why are there so few options, you ask? Because not everyone owns the same computer with the same fonts installed. For the typeface to show up correctly on one’s computer, they must have that typeface installed. If not, then it will move to an alternative, selected by the developer, down to whatever the default is on that person’s computer.
Although there are many different ways that one can use image-replacement or font-replacement to achieve a better design, are these ways really effective?
What is the main thing that people notice in web design? I guess I just gave away the answer in the question. It’s the design. Either the design is good or bad and that will have an instant impact on your visitor’s experience and your reputation as a person or company. Typography can either bring a design together or tear it apart.
There are many different options to get what you want: sIFR, @font-face, cufón, SIIR, and image replacement are all different techniques, but they all have their limitations. Some may claim they do it all, but unfortunately, no one has yet created the perfect replacement method.
Below are the problems that come with font-replacement methods:
- Increased Load Time
- Not All Text Read by Spiders
- Simple Changes are Time-Consuming
- Text is not Selectable
- Font Copyright Restrictions
- Limited Font Selection
- Pay for the Service
If you have noticed, the top two reasons listed are both directly related to SEO, and almost every replacement method will increase your load time, even if just by a small amount. Now, I’m not saying that your website is doomed if you use one of these methods; I’m just saying that it isn’t helping your site’s ranking.
All in all, you have the final say on what is more important to you? Your website design, or your site’s ranking/user-friendliness. Personally my choice is the latter, (and I’m a designer!)
If anyone knows of the perfect font-replacement method, then I would love to know about it. If not, and you have a website needing a digital makeover, contact TM, and we will create you a good-looking website that still gets the job done.
Hi Seth,
I’d have to disagree a bit. Although some of the above method are not “good” for SEO that doesn’t mean your SEO will be “good.” Content is king and if “the king” is not present your site won’t be either. A great alternative to web type replacement is Typekit. It’s both free and subscription-based, pending on the size of the type library you want access to. Typekit allows you to font stack, so a backup, web-safe font would appear if a browser did not support Typekits specified font(s).
Another alternative would be to use revised font stacking. Read more about there here: http://www.awayback.com/revised-font-stack/ — sure things might appear different for different people, but embrace the differences. The enhancements some people will see will go unnoticed for others that do not see them and I’d bet you that the others would never know what they are missing out on. If some saw Hoefler Text as the serif body copy and others saw Georgia, they would be being viewing beautiful serifs, although those viewing Hoefler would be in for a less typical viewing treat. Just some food for thought.
Brian,
Thanks for your comment. Of course, content is the most important. I figured that would already be understood by everyone already. Without that, your site has no SEO value whatsoever. My point was that your SEO can be lowered through using a type replacement method just through load time alone, and possibly various other reasons. Although, depending on how your site’s ranking currently is, it could have little to no difference.
As for Typekit, I have actually looked at that method before and it appears to be better than most, but it is a paid subscription. In freelance I’ve heard clients say they want their company’s font (which first needs to be supported by type kit), and that they want it free. It makes it difficult when they don’t want to pay for anything.
Finally, I have done font stacking before, and find it quite useful. I do actually embrace little differences between computer and browsers (except for IE), but my main goal is to make sure that the typeface (and any other element that can cause a difference) is similar enough to the alternatives so it doesn’t mess with the branding of their site. You know as well as I do that a consistent brand is everything to a company.