Gill Sans Family Font

Posted on by
Gill Sans Family Font

If you install a font you have either bought it or obtained a free font – there are no legal problems with the use of this as the CSS code is merely calling the font from the user’s computer. No issue at all. If you want your web design to look pretty much the same in each browser, then you roughly need to stick to Arial, Georgia, Impact, Times, Times New Roman, Verdana, Courier New – & add either sans serif or serif at the end of your line of code as a last resort default font. Remember that using a font that is not generic will potentially throw up problems with the actual space that the text takes up on a site as the browser hunts for a replacement font to use. A few of the fonts in this post get their web-safe cred by being included with Office applications, so it’s a better-than-even shot that a given user has installed them either by not paying attention in the course of the Office install or by paying attention and opting for the fonts.

Gill Sans is the famous set of humanist sans serif fonts originally designed by Eric Gill and the Monotype Type Drawing Office, first appearing in 1928. Gill studied.

So whether a given typeface is web-safe or not depends on whether the audience segment in the aggregate likely installed the fonts with Office. So then the question is: where are you going to use a half-web-safe font? I think for the back of the stack you want truly web-safe fonts. For the front of the stack, why bother with these when you’ve got @font-face? Those give us TRULY gorgeous type. Fifteen years was a very long time with the six or seven web-safe faces (Comic Sans does NOT count).

I frankly hope never to spec any of those for the front of a font stack ever again, unless they’re part of a client’s actual brand. And then we’ll probably use the real typeface – not the web-safe, lame substitute. Now, again, to be clear, I’m talking about the front of the stack – the place where we spec what’s going to happen in modern browsers on computers that were built in the last five years. Brixter is correct – setting default fonts is a great way to use a common font you love, but have a websafe back-up. Just make sure you check your site with the default font to make sure it looks good – ie.

Spacing, size, etc. Lisa, I wish that were true about using “”, but unfortunately it doesn’t work that way.

A font must be installed on the OS to work. The only alternative method I know of is to use jquery script which installs the font on the server, and therefore allows you to use any font you want, without having to compromise text content. Richard Nj Malayalam Serial Actor on this page. Haven’t used it yet, but i am working on a site in Gill Sans right now (love this font), and I think I might give it a try because I cant find a default websafe font I love for this one.

This is a great list. Eventhough all of the fonts aren’t truly websafe, they are pretty close. And they all can be beautiful (TG no Comic Sans on this list – tacky!) if used in the right way and make sense with the branding. I don’t love Century Gothic, but I work on a lot of children’s branding/sites, and it fits very well in that market. Times new Roman can be very beautiful and sophisticated if you play with the spacing and/or use all caps. And courier new in all lower case is awesome for a vintage look. Check out Anthropologie (one of my fave sites) – even they use it – LOVE!

One more note – Lacuna is free, but it isn’t websafe. Fun font, though! Most of these font’s aren’t web safe. Web safe font’s haven’t changed in the last 10 years.

Mostly because people are still using PC’s that have 10 year old OS’s on them (XP). To be truly web safe they need to be available on all OS’s, Linux, Mac and PC in the same style. This is why most sites have stuck with them. Web safe font’s have also been tweaked to work at small sizes as pixel fonts. Because believe it or not people still use PC’s with no font smoothing enabled (at small sizes). There are plenty of alternatives for things like titles or short bits of large text (cufon, sifr etc). For body copy, it’s probably best to stick with the true web safe fonts for now.

@font-face is the alternative, but you need to have paid licensing on the font and you also need to be very careful of the font you choose, lest you render your entire site unreadable to some people. Nice fonts, but these are not all web-safe. A web-safe font is one that is pre-loaded on every machine.

Copperplate and Century Gothic are not. In any case, whether web-safe or not, a font should always be defined in CSS followed by a font-family. That way even if the font is missing or corrupt, the browser will default to an acceptable alternative. The CSS for this is define the chosen font first and then follow it with the font family, like this:- font-family: “Arial Black”, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; The browser will try to display Arial Black first, then if it can’t find it will default to the other fonts. If you don’t do this and the font is missing, the browser will display the font in the user’s default font setting. Courier New, anyone?

Hmmmm, can anyone suggest what the fallback for Century Gothic would be? I was thinking: ‘Century Gothic’, ‘Futura’, ‘Helvetica’, ‘Arial’, ‘Liberation Sans’, sans-serif I suppose it’s about how much you care if your website looks completely different depending on which computer you look at it on. Most of these font’s aren’t web safe, e.g. Century Gothic not being on Vista or Ubuntu.

If you are going to call these web safe then you should provide the full list of alternatives. Even Arial by itself could not be considered web safe, unless you don’t mind the OS picking for you. Technically, you are NOT using any fonts when you design a website. You are only declaring a font name to the browser. When the client opens a website and his computer finds that declaration, then it’s that client’s computer the one using the font to draw the web page in the screen. You are not liable in anyway for declaring whatever font name you want to declare in your HTML code. Only if the client has the font in his computer, then the client will be using it.

And, if the client has any font installed that is not licenced for HTML-viewing (which I’m sure is not the case for any font in the world), then it should be the client’s responsibility, not yours. Aren’t these fonts from 1998? I think you are a bit confused as to what is being referred to here when the words “license”, “webfont” and “user” are presented.

The concept being presented is the use of webfonts stored on a webserver and presented to a clients browser as assets to render the page. Therefore, “user” is the person legally responsible for running the website.

So in this case a user of the license agreement that stipulates acceptable circumstances and limitations of the use of the font, a user of the license. You can’t assume most fonts you might have in ~/.fonts or /usr/share/fonts/ would contain a section on webfonts in their license (if you even bothered to store the license) However, it’s all roses if you use the google webfonts archive.