Due to my previous musings on @font-face and the ongoing issues of embedding beautiful font faces, I thought it was only apt that I give the newly launched Typekit a quick once over and see just how useful this font as service offering is.
I’m going to approach this review trying to forget most of what I already know about @font-face embedding. There is a free solution available right now which would more than likely render Typekit useless for me, for personal sites at least, for the time being. I’m going to explore Typekit with an imaginary scenario that assumes I’m a design professional working on behalf of a client.
So I’m working on a client project and they want a lovely typeface for their spanking new web site. I’ve exhausted the free font sites and my favourite preselected free font faces that are readily embeddable. The client has done a bit of research and has found a commercial typeface that he would really love to use, so its my job to either purchase the font for static use on my local machine or try to embed it legally using @font-face.
It could also happen that the client has strict brand guidelines and the font to be used isn’t my choice.
Next step is to check the type house that produces this font and see if they themselves have any information on embedding on the web. No luck! So I take a wander over to Typekit …
Size of font library
This is where the size of Typekit’s font library comes into play. At a glance I’d estimate the library count at under 300. What are the chances of finding the typeface so precious to my client in a pool of under 300, this is of course assuming that all of the Typekit library are commercial fonts and not a mix of free and commercial which I’m pretty sure is the case. You may say that they have only just launched and therefore need a bit of time to build their library, that’s all well and good but not to forget that in this scenario I’ve only come to Typekit because my other options have fallen flat.
For me and possibly a lot of other designers it would be slightly unrealistic to start this scenario in reverse ie. offer Typekit library fonts only firstly in the proposals and then fall back on free offerings. It just isn’t an economic way of doing things given the cost implication and the massive difference in choice.
Update – Shortly after completing this review Typekit announced a partnership with FontFont which is highly encouraging for not only the quantity of the library but also the quality.
Plans, Pricing & Billing …
So making the assumption (despite the obvious issues) that my client’s selected typeface is available from Typekit, I now need to create my account and grab this font for usuage on my client’s new web site.
Now this raises a few questions for me as the designer.
You can see the pricing plans aren’t massively expensive (although there is no real base for comparison just yet) but as the designer I don’t want to be left with this bill for the lifetime of the client’s web site. Take the portfolio plan for example, its $49.00 for the first year but then $170.00 for each subsequent year.
Now I see the portfolio plan as the bare minimum entry level for a client web site seen as it is the first plan that gives you full library access and enough bandwidth to feel comfortable with for the first integration. This leaves me two options – To continually bill my client long after the development of the site is finished, putting me in an awkward position of middleman between a third party service and my client, or, have my client signup to Typekit himself, putting me in an awkward position of Typekit support.
Also to note, the portfolio plan allows you to embed fonts within 5 different web sites. This feature may be useful in certain situation but is fairly redundant in my scenario and I guess in many. How would you measure usage from 5 different web sites sharing one account and then move them accordingly if they overuse. Placing 5 web sites under one account leaves no room for scope, even a straight upgrade to the maximum plan could cause issues if you have a real bandwidth hog. A straight upgrade to the full plan also almost trebles your outgoings. It’s down to you to pass the cost down the river when working on a clients behalf.
Moving on to administration interface …
So I find the requested font in the Typkit library and rather than endure the hassle of getting my client to sign-up, I sign-up myself under the portfolio plan. Despite my previous reservations I explain this additional cost and service to the client and he’s fine with it.
I’m not going to go into details on the admin side of the Typekit application, its simple, easy to use and in an understated way beautifully designed. It’s also been covered here, here and in a few other places.
Essentially I’ve now completed my job in this scenario. Once I have my log in details it couldn’t be easier to get the font up and running on my client’s web site and everybody is happy!
Rendering differences will occur dependant on operating system and browser but this isn’t the fault of Typekit, more the fault of the individual browser vendors and operating systems. The best way to overcome this is thorough testing and tweaking.
Last note on reliability and ongoing use …
The embedding method for Typekit is based mostly around Javascript and as you would expect CSS properties. With any external Javascript there is always the risk of reliability issues, in Typekit’s feature tour they claim infinite scalability which is great, unfortunately for a cynic like myself it takes more than words to convince me of this. I’m not saying they can not deliver but a one page claim to infinite scalability is not enough for me to be completely satisfied. What else could they do? Well they have an uptime monitor here which puts my mind at ease a tad more if not completely.
The proof of their actual reliability will more than likely be unknown until the service grows to a stage where they need to put their architecture to the test. Without doubt they’ve tested it to within an inch of its existence before hand but no amount of testing can compare to real usage in the real world.
As a designer looking to embed fonts right now I have to decide whether the potential pitfalls outweigh the advantages of embedding. This will change on a site to site basis with the deciding factor being size and current level of exposure of the site in question.
To sum up …
I like Typekit! The review I’ve just written may seem negative but it isn’t intended to be. I’ve picked a test scenario that I think covers the biggest group of people needing to embed fonts at the moment. In my opinion Typekit isn’t the answer for designers and design studios working across multiple web sites because of the points raised above. It is, however, a viable option for designers working in-house on one web site or designers working on multiple personal projects. Portfolios and blogs are again perfect candidates. Assuming that the previous can justify the expense that is.
Niche is a word that I think just about sums up Typekit for me, I don’t think it is the ultimate answer for embedding font faces across the entire web. Typekit is a step up from SIFR and co. but just one step away from the ultimate solution that I think we are yet to meet. Exclusivity will be the key as well as proof of reliability. Its important not to forget that although the future looks great for direct embedding of commercial fonts it still isn’t here as we would like it. I think Typekit can grab a good chunk of designers still waiting for direct @font-face embedding with an enticing library and sound reliability but whether they can keep them when a more advanced solution comes along is another question for another day.
Bryce
December 6th, 2009
I hope that Typekit implement a Designers system, like services such as Campaign Monitor have where Typekit bills the client but the designer is able to manage all the fonts and code etc
