Yesterday I happened to catch a glimpse of a tweet linking to an article titled, The Problem with Free Fonts, and as a typography fanatic I had to click and read. I’m not sure if the article title was a bit misleading, but I was a hint disappointed by the depth of the articles positioning.
[Please note: I have nothing against the article, writer or website. I just felt that the subject needed to be further touched upon.]
To keep things short, the article only went into enough detail to say the problem is that they become “bludgeoned to death through massive over use.” While this certainly holds true, it’s not really the “problem” with free fonts, or fonts in general. Museo, the semi-slab from exljbris is a beautiful typeface, and while they do offer three weights for free, it is still a well-crafted family with close to 400 glyphs, standard ligatures and true italics to support. There is no actual “problem” with Museo. We do see it used quite often, but it’s mostly the misuse, not the overuse, that should siphon concern. If used correctly you can see it is an extremely beautiful typeface. Although, many free fonts can also be extremely beautiful. The trick is knowing how / when to use them, their history, your message and how it’s being stated with the type personality you select.
The first problem
In my opinion, the number one problem with free fonts is that many of us look through hundreds of galleries online and typically choose something that “looks good” and work around that. Not necessarily a wrong approach, however many of these free distributers fail to provide background information / history, the medium which is was intended for (typefaces are typically created with a purpose in mind) and other important information.
As you might have known, I am a huge fan of Typekit. Beyond offering beautiful font licensing on the web, they do a great job of educating the user. As an example, when you are viewing Typekit’s database and come across, let’s say, FF Meta Web Pro, they offer a resourceful About this font writeup:
“FF Meta was originally (1985) conceived as a typeface for use in small point sizes. Against its intended purpose, FF Meta very quickly became one of the most popular typefaces of the computer era. It is used a lot in magazines, from the Normal weight in small point sizes for captions up to the Black version for large headlines. Designed by Erik Spiekermann. More about FF Meta Web Pro…“
Without having to dig to deep, we immediately can assume this font is great for body copy (since it reads well at small sizes), it’s easy on the eye (since it’s used in a lot of magazines), and they even let us know that it works well for both captions and headlines — how useful! The standard (non-web) version even provides more in depth background information. Type history should not be overlooked.
The second problem
Typically the next problem is most free fonts only offer one weight and one style. This may serve well for a single headline, but if you are setting type for editorial design this will create a problem when it comes to establishing a hierarchy. Having a full featured typefaces for the job, such as true italics, bold weights, small caps, ligatures, etc. will take you a long way. A huge “no, no” is letting computer software handle bolding and italicizing (also known as faux italicizing and bolding). It’s all about having the right font for the right job.
The third problem
I find many free fonts, if they do have a few extra weights and styles, to be poorly constructed. Quality fonts, for the most part, rarely need to be kerned and adjusted to read and look consistent. Each letterform was carefully constructed and thought-out to work perfectly sitting next to the previous and following character. Many of the free fonts unfortunately do not.
Take Asenine for example. The normal weight might seem fine to many at first glance, however the “wide” version, and two condensed versions seems to be distorted and squished. The font becomes careless in a sense. FF Absara on the other hand, which has an extremely large suite, has various weights and styles that look like each letterform was perfectly and carefully manufactured.
I’m certain many reading this article are agreeing upon the points made above, yet cringing at the fact of buying a font. I’m not saying you have to go out and buy an entire type family. Purchase a single font (at times a single font, weight, and style only cost $40–$60.00 or so) when necessary though. Work it into your clients budget and explain to them the reason you are buying the font you are using for their logo, for example. Help them to understand that this is the best solution because the font was created to work well at very large sizes and very small sizes so it will improve the readability and recognition if the logo is displayed small or large. Explain to them that using this typeface will improve prolonged reading on their blog, minus the eye strain. Not only will you have happier clients that understand the process and reasoning for making the decisions we make, but it will help to improve your portfolio since you will have much better looking samples to show.
Currently the web is moving towards a shift and really showcasing beautiful typographic examples where limitations prevented us prior. Typekit is one of the best $50 a year I’ve spent in a long time. It’s great to see a service that licenses high caliber fonts also provide educational insight and bring true value to the understanding typography. With more ways than ever to bring beautiful type to the web it’s necessary to harness a concrete understanding of type. As the saying goes, “With great power brings great responsibility.”
For me, typography has always been the science of an art form. It requires patience and understanding. Learning as much as you can about type, fonts and its history really goes a long way. “Huge font libraries don’t make good designs, good designers make good designs.” — Sean Gaffney and Matthew Smith, Web Typography & CSS3 Presentation
Give two individuals a chisel and a block of wood, one will give you a chair the other a funny shaped piece of wood….
Thanks for the great insight. Typography seems to be the new ‘web 2.0′. Although designers like you get it, I’m not excited to see the misuse and overuse of services like Typekit.
But, I guess that’s part of succuess, 66% failure.
Thanks again for the great insite!
Great post Brian – I don’t think the linked article really answered its headline.
With the exposure and ease of publicity the internet affords us I think some designers are moving towards using fonts because they’re à la mode rather than the most appropriate face for the context.
Museo is a great example – it is a gorgeous font but definitely being overused for the wrong reasons. League Gothic is another. It doesn’t mean that they are bad fonts but familiarity breeds contempt and if people are using them because they’re ‘cool’ rather than appropriate it can only be a matter of time before we’re sick of them. Shame.
With that said there are plenty of great free fonts (and I have been known to use DaFont when necessary), and there are just as many not-so-good paid fonts from big foundries. ITC Garamond, anyone?
With the democratisation of font selection we just need to foster a culture of typographic education. People need to know why they’re using the fonts they can now use.
As you’ve pointed out, it’s hard not to agree with what you’ve stated. I think the best aspect of free-fonts is that it begins to open a lot of designers’ eyes to the potential behind using appropriate typefaces. Many young designers, like myself, begin with the pre-loaded library in photoshop. Then, you come across the free sites and start seeing that there is so much out there. This is hopefully followed up by a desire to learn more about typefaces and realize that free or not, it is worth the time to investigate how different treatments affect your work. (This progression is based on the assumption that the “young designer” being referenced has no formal training.)
Rajesh,
Well said my friend.
Scott,
I wouldn’t say it is the new ‘web 2.0.’ Typography has always been the backbone of good design, however, more recently it has evolved from print and with services like Typekit, and font-replacement methods like @font-face and Cufon, web designers are now able to embrace typography in a new medium. I agree about the over use of services like Typekit, but I think Typekit is doing a great job of bringing the education aspect forward and helping users understand that it’s not about choosing a pretty font. In the end though, it’s still about how the user uses or misuses it. Only time will tell :)
appreciate this article. Something i was never taught was to look at a font’s history, though now that you’ say it, it makes complete sense.
Good points, Brian. I read the same article, and agree with your furthering of the argument. It is tough to find legitimately well-designed free fonts out there; I’d much rather pony up some cash for a font family from H&FJ that I can use for the rest of my life.
That being said, I do appreciate free fonts and being able to take ‘em for a test drive. Thanks for the article.
Thanks for the article, Brian. It was a really good read.
Jeff and Skylar,
Thanks guys. Glad you enjoyed the read. Jeff, I completely agree. A well invested, quality font will take you a much longer way than a poorly constructed font.
I agree 100%. Another spin-off of this is that fonts with author notations in the reason for their creation is just a starting point. I know when I first started designing I would see an amazing typeface and I would use it in the right context (for example Meta Serif Pro for body copy), but when you combine certain design elements with typography the personality of that typeface changes with it and you need to adapt your design accordingly (dark grunge background vs. light paper background for instance), which is really the #1 thing, personally, I notice when it comes to typography in general is.
Hopefully I’m not confusing the hell out of anyone haha… Quick example would be your use of Tungsten, a bold, condensed typeface works well within this flat color scheme with light textures and condensed grid system.
As for the free fonts discussion, again this is just me, but there is just an unrivaled quality you get from a retail typeface, as well as a distinct ‘rush’ per say when you get your hands on it and start using it. An example of this may be using LOMT’s League Gothic, or alternating to purchase Linotype’s Trade Gothic or Font Bureau’s Titling Gothic (expensive and extensive font family)
http://www.theleagueofmoveabletype.com/fonts/7-league-gothic
http://www.fontbureau.com/fonts/TitlingGothicFB/
With this though, you just go right back to your point of explaining to clients the necessity and reasoning for using alternate/retail typefaces whether they are for distinction, legibility, whatever their use may be.
I read “The Problem with Free Fonts” yesterday and was also left with the feeling that it was titled incorrectly. Your article really fits the bill. I would like to expand upon your last point.
Just this morning I was working with a free font that was recommended through one of the ten posts I see a day that claim to have “hand-picked quality free fonts”. When I looked at the glyphs, all of the uppercase vowels were missing – replaced with “trial version” or something. I feel that is a retarded thing to do because I couldn’t “test drive” the font.
I download typeface samples all of the time from My Fonts and the like. If I like the typeface, I will go back and purchase two or more weights because I respect the designer’s hard work.
I see free fonts as a great way for type designers to promote their work and get their product out there in the hands of designers. Conversely, we should give back.
Hi Brian. Well I’m glad you put that little note in at the top and have nothing against me or my article.
After reading your response, however, I think you and some of the other commenters are right. The title did promise a lot more than it delivered – or was ever intended to deliver. That’s just bad composition. I should know better so thanks for calling my attention to it.
And thanks for writing this too. I think it really helped add some perspective to my use of fonts and typography!
Matt,
I really hope I have not offended you. It was in no way to discredit you or anything like that. Actually, I’m a fan of your thoughtful writing and articles. This one I just felt needed to be further addressed. Not for the sake of discrediting you, but rather to help further educate those learning typography. I hope feelings continue to remain well between us. :)
Brian,
No offense at all. I’m actually just thrilled that you even read the article in the first place. And I think that the way you positioned your response was great – very respectful of the original article. And the added points go really well with it!
And if you’re mission was to further educate, well consider it at least partially accomplished because it definitely helped educate me a bit more!
So yeah – not hard feelings whatsoever. I remain a loyal fan of your blog and your work :)
I found this article very insightful! I have never heard of many of the programmes you mentioned above, and will be sure to check them out. I also have to say, im loving the new re-design of your blog, its looking so clean! The only criticism i can give is about the joins between the texture on the sides. Its doing strange things with my eyes!
Good Job Brian,
well, I beleive we have a problems In the pricing of typefaces (not all sure) for example, you needs to paying 200$ or so to get Gotham Typeface, that’s so expensive for most of designers (Particularly junior of them)
I think we should reconsider in how to pricing the fonts, At least make options that fit for all
For someone so passionate about fonts, the legibility of the text on this website is a disgrace (on Chrome/Safari) guess it’s an issue with HTML5 or something, but yeah, I couldn’t finish reading the post, sorry.
Overuse of certain typefaces is a double-edged sword; originality vs. comprehension. I like the minimalism of good, familiar fonts.
Typesetting and semiotics go hand in hand. Good design is about communication which often relies on the audiences expectations. Although I love unique, hand-crafted fonts, more often I find the best fonts for communication are the old standards such as Helvetica, Gill Sans and Futura. Although I like to embrace the new, often my clients have specific typefaces in mind because they are familiar to them. Just have a look at road signs across your town, more often than not they are in Helvetica. People feel comfortable with familiar typefaces, and unless you are trying to shock or delight your audience with the unfamiliar, the safe road is often the most effective. Having said that, I wish I had a bigger budget for the beautiful boutique typefaces that are appearing, and I make a point of grabbing all the demo ones I can so I can at least spruce-up a headline.
Great article.
While I agree wholeheartedly with your article, I do have one exception.
Kerning is essential at headline and subhead levels no matter how well constructed the font.
It’s like tuning a guitar. One string even slightly out of tune sounds ugly, just like one letterspace out of whack will wreck a headline.
Well written article. Good job.
I’m all for the free fonts, but making a purchase every now and again for a quality font suite doesn’t hurt.
Brilliant article. I have to admit that I’m guilty of picking fonts just because I like the look rather than considering their purpose. I’ll certainly be a lot more mindful of that now. Given the enormous variety of free fonts though I’m not inclined to buy any just yet. I read the article you linked to and it comes off more as ‘Why I hate comics sans and papyrus’ than thoughtful use of typography.
Rod,
Could you be a bit more specific? You’re the first to have mentioned this. This is what I am seeing in Safari: http://cl.ly/1ggd and Chrome: http://cl.ly/1gMF. Thinking the problem might be on your end (?)
Great article! I rarely buy fonts, but it’s definitely something to think about. Thanks for the great points – I’m trying to consider my fonts more carefully.
Patrick,
You certainly are right when you say kerning of larger used typefaces and headlines are essential however much less so than most ill quality faces. Although, many quality typefaces have hundreds of kerning pairs that are defined (ie: Wa, Ya). These small, yet very important traits are what sets quality from non apart.
AJ,
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. Glad the article made you consider it more carefully. As an example I recently purchased the new, beautiful Quatro Slab from p.s.type. It bought a single weight and it only cost $25 out of the project cost (you can even write them off under your taxes!). Not only will I be able to use it for this current project, but for years ahead.
Hi Brian, here are two screenshots of your site on my pc/chrome – safari is ok, as all text looks a little different in it, but chrome is the real badguy here; it’s not just your site either, nearly every site I’ve seen using HTML5 markup displays the same quality text.
http://i31.tinypic.com/2hoah4p.jpg & http://i30.tinypic.com/2r2chh5.jpg
Version of Chrome is 6.0.466.0 dev
besides all of the talking. i really enjoy your article too.. :D
Type is software and, like all software, the cost isn’t necessarily correlated to the quality. In terms of using type, instead of the free vs. commercial arguments we should focus more on good vs. poor quality (technical and/or artistic) or even better: appropriate vs. inappropriate arguments.
“Huge font libraries don’t make good designs”
Great quote.
In the end, use the typeface appropriate for the project. If it’s free or $100, as long as it’s the appropriate option, it’s worth it.
There must be something in the air, because I myself just finished the third post in my in-depth examination of free fonts on The FontFeed, and there are two or three more in the pipeline. Glad I found your article via your tweet about mine (who needs RSS any longer?). :)
I really enjoyed reading your post. The aspects you touch upon are to the point and very well explained. However I would like to add a side note to the first problem.
Besides failing to provide background information about the history and intended use of fonts on free fonts site, there is a total lack of data about their provenance. If you finally manage to come across a quality free font, there is no guarantee that it is legit, not an unauthorised clone, a pirated and renamed commercial font, or a stolen proprietary face. I have seen many a stolen and renamed typeface include an End User Licence Agreement claiming that the pirate owned the design, and restricting its use (the irony). That is in my opinion one of the biggest problems with free font sites — they are cluttered, uncurated swamps. You have no way of knowing for sure what exactly you are downloading. And if you’re unfortunate enough to acquire a stolen proprietary face, you’re in for a heap of trouble. We’ve had the Hadopi story, also on The FontFeed, and a future episode in my Free Fonts series recounts the misadventures of a small design agency who had to deal with lawyers from both Yamaha and The Coca Cola Company.
@Jonathan – I totally agree on ITC Garamond, but that’s just us not liking its design, which is a subjective opinion. At least it is properly designed, digitised, spaced and kerned, and comes with a complete character set and a full range of styles, which is an objective assessment. We shouldn’t mix up those two things.
@Hillel – You say “Then, you come across the free sites and start seeing that there is so much out there.” Unfortunately what you’re seeing is 90 to 95% badly drawn and poorly digitised. If you want to expand your horizon I think you’re better off window-shopping commercial foundries and vendors. Then you take it from there and start building a quality library, including the odd free font.
Yves,
Appreciate the comment and the great insight. I too also came across your article and felt it was a great “partner” to my article as well—I listed it in my Notebook section—and touched upon the more technical aspects, which I lightly explained in light of keeping it simplistic. Your points about piracy and authorship are extremely valid. I think many designers result to free font sites due to lack of knowledge of typography and it’s importance. Many new (and experienced) designers treat type as an after-thought, instead of treating it as the backbone of great design.
Thats so true about the free fonts. But it is like everything that has to do with design. Good design needs work/time. And building a Font from scratch is a lot of work. Btw have you ever looked at your website without aliasing? I think ff-dagny-web-pro is a bit annoying without font smoothing :)
Great article. You definitely made me double check the choice of type I’m currently working on.
Great write-up. I read the free fonts article as well and it left me thinking as well. I think your contribution to the conversation was top notch. Golf Clap Time! ;)
Kudos for this post Brian, a hell of a reading, in a positive way. :)
As someone old enough to graduate from college pre-web (1991 to be exact – it also was not a good year for graduates), and as a former teacher, I think there’s a dearth of solid typographic education in American university system today.
Unfortunately, it’s also getting worse as the most of the old guards have retired and more and more focus (and class hours) is on learning technical skills rather than typographical fundamentals (boy that’s a mouthful) that are the basis of any good typography, and thus any good communication design.
One of the side effect of having more technology than skill is the current state of “free” fonts (although some commercial ones can’t escape the same criticism). How can we expect the type designers to properly kern, stretch, and pitch letterforms if they were not prperly taught in the first place? Or even to be aware that they are as important as any other aspect of type design?
Of course the poor support for CSS standards (hello IE9) and the strict nature of front-end coding has stunted web “typography”, but I think it’s a challenge to all of us to continue to educate our clients and students about the importance of the fundamentals, whether you’re a fan of Müller-Brockmann or David Carson.
The irony in reading this post is that for some reason the text is incredibly blurry. It’s almost like the effect you get when you have an LCD panel set to the wrong resolution and the pixels are smeared. It’s only the test in the body, not other pages or where I’m writing this comment. I’m using the latest Firefox with all standard settings and font size but the text is terrible.
The web typography is becoming better these days FINALLY because there are tools that support that better. Still though, type on websites could’ve have been better 10 years ago but we’re only seeing this change now. Is that because of the tools or is it not??
In your post you mention explaining to clients why you are buying a certain font, and then how this should be worked in to the budget.
Passing on the costs of buying fonts to your clients (or not doing so) is something many have passionate arguments on, what are your views on this?
great article! Thanks for the fantastic insights!
A really good overview. I’d like to add a few random thoughts to the conversation.
I think the best argument in avoiding free fonts is given by Yves. One can have trouble finding the provenance of some free fonts. The best way to avoid using fonts such as these is to ask around. Ask on Typophile. People there aren’t shy about telling you what is what. ;)
That said, if you can verify that the fonts are not derivative (or otherwise) and they suit the project then why not use them? I appreciate that appropriateness was brought into the discussion. But, the argument that free fonts render your project unoriginal because they are used in so many other places is kind of mute given the fact that one can see [enter overused and/or misused pay font name here] on every street corner from here to Timbuktu.
As designers one of the things we add to a client’s work is originality and separation in the marketplace. The use of fonts is one of the ways this is done. If you look around and the competition are using x, y, and z, you need to reach around and go back to q. Free or not, if it suits the project and adds some ownability and originality then why not?
Althought it is true that the general majority of free fonts are not the best quality. There are some very popular pay fonts that aren’t worth the money either. But with some work they are usable.* I don’t really think of these as fonts (software) so much modern day rub-down lettering. These are the fonts that might have lovely shapes but you simply can’t use them without a lot of finessing.
*I’m talking about display typography, not book or long-form typography where you’d be crazy to not start with anything less that a well-spaced typeface.
As a web designer, for me fonts really play a great role..
Great article,
Tiffany,
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, and I agree with you (and Yves) completely. In the end it comes down to lack of “type education” all around. Articles, such as Yves discussing his take on the problem with free fonts, are needed more and more to continue educating designers and clients alike.
As for the overuse of fonts, again, agreed. No matter what the font – even the most expensive “paid” font – can be seen a million times around the world and back. Appropriateness and understanding comes into play.
Brian, great read and some good thoughts on the quality of free fonts.
I agree with you on making an investment into type families, but understand that it gets expensive. Along with your suggestion of working the cost into the client’s budget, designers should also try to purchase families a few at a time.
A good collection will grow over the course of a few years. No need to go nuts and buy 20 families in a month.
Brian, I couldn’t agree more. Nevertheless: let’s not forget that having fun with typography is also an important part of our job. Perhaps as a reaction to the limitless stream of (bad, OK) free fonts, designers feel the need to distance themselves from enthusiast amateurs by stating that they are professionals and therefore know what’s best. But fun raises interest and interest creates knowledge…
Thanks for adding this article to the afore mentioned one coming along a little short to my feeling as well. The responsibility of chosing the right or suitable typeface cannot be stressed enough. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and links.
So i know this isn’t completely on topic, but I read your article (or maybe it was a link you put up) on typekit, I was wondering if you have heard of or used sifr? Apparently it’s all flash and it will re-write the type for you. Atleast that’s how my boss described it. What are you’re thoughts on it. (http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/sifr) link related. Oh and its all free.
I agree with the comment regarding training and education on when to use a particular font.
Nice article. The suggestion you have posted in your article are worth considering. Besides your article gave me new knowledge. Thanks for this great article.
Thanks for the insight :) i’ve learned quite a number of things from your post. Thanks for sharing !
I recognise the importance of being original with your fonts, but sometimes it is also about having the ability to identify a free font or a standard font that is similar enough to what you intended or to the printed font chosen. This is because for web pages, we are still pretty much limited by standard fonts.