If you have the ability to download your fonts and create the webfont versions, then do. I create the webfonts from the original (print not webfont) true type or open type font file. I use font squirrel. It's been my experience that you should always load the .ttf before the .woff in the css declaration because chrome and Firefox like the .ttf better (And that is the .ttf created on font squirrel, not your original print .ttf file, just fyi).
http://www.fontsquirrel.com/tools/webfont-generator Hth, Best, Karl Sent from losPhone On Sep 19, 2013, at 3:31 PM, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tut.fi> wrote: > 2013-09-19 23:06, Markus Ernst wrote: > >> In my new website http://www.markusernst.ch I use web fonts. Now I found >> that the appearance of these fonts is good in Firefox and IE, but quite >> poor in Chrome and Opera (on Windows 7). > > The copy text font looks basically similar in Chrome and Firefox on my > screen. Horizontal strokes in capital letters look irregularly thick. > >> They are actually high quality fonts, the main text font is Dalton >> Maag's Aller, the alternative headline fonts are Google web fonts. > > High quality fonts designed for print media may not work well on screen. > >> Is it possible that Google's browser does handle Google's fonts poorly? >> (Actually, until know I was thinking that the fonts are displayed by the >> operating system rather than the browser applications.) Or do I have >> some mistake in my code? > > Generally, font rendering is a rather complicated issue and depends on > operating system, browser, display device, and other things. I think you > should focus on one font at a time, in a simple setup, and experiment with > different font sizes. I have seen Google fonts that mysteriously look very > bad in some size but essentially better in a size 1px larger or smaller. This > is bad news for those who favor the principle "let the user decide", since > this normally means that the browser's default size will be used. On the > other hand, checking with typical default size of 12pt should then deal with > most problem of this type. > > Oddly enough, when I try to use the Font Information 1.0 add-on (which > normally works excellently) in Firefox on your page, I get basically blank > font names (names consisting of "." and a box), in addition to the varying > Google font names. So I suspect that there might be something wrong with the > font files of the copy text - at least a broken name table. > > Yucca > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] > http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d > List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ > List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html > Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
