digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Great Fonts for Web 2.0

modernlifeisrubbish.co.uk — Fonts are an essential part of design - but there are thousands of fonts out there, so knowing which ones to use can be quite daunting. Here's a roundup of some fonts that have found popularity recently.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • f174e, on 10/12/2007, -18/+9nice listing! thank you!
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36"Fonts are an essential part of design - but there are thousands of fonts out there, so to satisfy your laziness here are a bunch of overused cliches that will allow you to create the most soulless, unoriginal website ever."

      There, I fixed that headline summary for ya.
    • flernk, on 10/12/2007, -11/+43A) No download links.
      B) You could only find 9 fonts?
      C) Why would we want to use an unoriginal font for our own design?
      D) Buried. Lame.
    • thatgirlismine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6There are no download links because most of those look to be commercial fonts, which usually sell in the $150-200 range, If you really like any of them, you can easily find them yourself.
    • TheKlaw, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Haha, it's kinda cool. The first two fonts on the list are ones I use heavily in my comic ( http://www.thinkin-lincoln.com )! I guess I am WEB 2.0 READY.
    • lankybutmacho, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14@flernk

      A) A quality font is worth paying for, or at least putting some effort into pirating.
      B) The entire point of this article is to give a short list of well-designed fonts, not come up with as many possible.
      C) These fonts are "unoriginal" because they're widely used. They're widely used because they are extremely well-crafted typefaces. The "original" fonts you find at websites like 1001fonts.com are often fonts that somebody who knows nothing about type design crapped out in a few hours of work. A font like Helvetica represents about 4 years of work and extreme attention to the details of optical adjustment, kerning and alignment. If you care about design that is clean, well-balanced and professional, you are far better off using a time-tested font like the ones in this list.
      D) If this list is lame, why are the fonts in it used by some of the most successful sites on the web?
    • flernk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A) I never suggested these fonts should be free. Personally, I like House, and their fonts cost a pretty penny. The author should have at least given us a link to the company who produced the font.
      B) A short list is fine, but these 9 don't even cover the major styles of modern fonts, let alone provide a complete list of standard fonts.
      C) Nothing in your well worded argument changes the fact that a designer must still find an appropriate font for their logo. The problem with this list resides in B). If the list was intended as inspiration, it should have been more thorough. Simply copying these fonts remains boring and unoriginal.
      D) The fonts aren't lame, the fonts are great. the ARTICLE is lame. I wanted it to be good, but it's just not. I marked it lame after I read it.
  • doubleyoube, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2:)

    thanks
  • adriantr, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Awesome listing thanks!
  • westfork, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9nice list, except for myriad, that is.... since it's the default font selection in Illustrator, I just assume that the designer either didn't care to select a font, or was just lazy, when ever I see myriad.
    • Lutz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Or just like the font Myriad? Since it's a great font.
    • spliffy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7i could care less that myriad is the default font in illustrator. it is absolutely immaculate and tasteful in its design. highly readable and unbelievable versatile at a range of sizes.
    • resplence, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, it's just a matter of a font becoming the default on a program to render it completely distasteful and worthless. Whevener you use Times New Roman and Avant Garde everyone just assumes you 'were lazy' and didn't care to select a font.

      Myriad is a great font and it'll be a shame if it's also relegated to limbo.
    • dDuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Illustrator is a high end graphics program, the programmers and designers knew that using a great default font was important, so they picked one. I use Helvetica in my designs a lot, you could say that it's boring because it's used so much, however it is elegant and works. Myriad is the same, it's a beautiful font and I do not at all feel that its inclusion is any way lazy. This list is supposed to be succinct, not a 'the top 100 fonts ever' type list, it is specific. You judge way too harsh, I found this article very useful and will try out some of these fonts in future designs.
  • Uranium118, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5What the hell is Web 2.0
  • mrjames, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Ridiculous link. Give it a year, this 'Web 2.0' aesthetic fad will die. People won't put up with bad design forever.
    • modernlife, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8So called 'Web 2.0' designs don't necessarily have to be bad...
    • mrjames, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Why should there be a prescribed aesthetic? It's called form over function. The most useful fonts for web design would be screen fonts like Verdana, Georgia, etc. because they were designed for screen-rendering and legibility. While neo-humanist sans serifs may be all the rage on these sites, it's just thoughtless design. The Web 2.0-look bandwagon is like the blind leading the blind.
    • npsken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Web 2.0 isn't necessarily design. What it is, though, is fancy javascripty stuff going on: sliders, hiding content, drag and drop; these are all examples.
  • MikeEnIke, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Wait, no links to downloads?
    • Anrkist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6http://www.myfonts.com/ - Now go pay for them.
    • samste, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2http://dafont.com
    • MikeEnIke, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Anrkist:

      I love the immediate belief that I am a software pirate and am only looking for free illegal 'warez' to programs (or in this case fonts). While I wouldn't pay for any of these fonts, seeing as it is simply a look at 'Web 2.0' sites and researching their font, I don't like the forward accusation that I was looking to pirate it. If that wasn't your intention... don't be an ass about it.
  • greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Wow... a list of fonts but no fonts to download.... Useless....
  • rynTAU, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2All of these articles about Web2.0. What we really need is an article with better names for Web2.0 than "Web2.0".
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8How's this:

      Web.
    • rynTAU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Less is More. I like.
    • jshusta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1agreed. there's more to life than version numbers.

      and i'll go you one better: what's wrong with just "Great Fonts" for a title? "look, guys, here are some Great Fonts. you might use them on a website. you might use them on a pdf version of your resume. you might think they are dumb. but i, dear sirs, think that these are some Great Fonts. thank you for your time."
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Introspective Javascripted dynamic XML presentation with CSS/BLING layer?
  • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Trebuchet MS ftw
    • undershirt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Verdana will always have a place in my heart.
  • riceguitar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They're all inside of Adobe Font Folio.
  • diggaro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Zeldman made Clarendon popular long before Ning was launched.
  • gboodhoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Inane article. Pointless article. Unless you're doing some form of font replacement - sIFR comes to mind - none of these could be guaranteed to show up in a browser - whether on the desktop, phone, PDA or refrigerator.

    If all that's expected is to create a gfx file from the type, how is that any different than what's been commonplace since, uh... 1993.

    I find it both incredible & annoying that this listing of fairly standard typefaces is being billed as somehow relevant to so-called "Web 2.0" Is it because they're so "tasteful", so "clean"? Jeez, if only the typefaces came with built-in glossy reflections!

    My understanding was that Web 2.0 was about more than appearance, and was in fact all about open semantically relevant data.
    • macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Hate to be an ass but web 2.0 is just a dumbass marketing ploy to dupe 60yo CEOs into buying internet companies that still haven't made a profit since 1998. And it ain't the fonts - it is how you finesse them that counts.
    • radishes11, on 09/02/2008, -0/+0These are for logos, which are image files. Sheesh.
  • xrizzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Does anyone know the font used in the newsgator logo: http://www.newsgator.com/home.aspx ?

    I don't have adobe so I can't compare...
  • cvweiss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Is it just me, or does Web 2.0 also seem to mean GREAT BIG TEXT ?
  • CameronHigh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No you can't download most of these fonts....you can BUY them however. Its too bad that these great typefaces have to attached to some crappy idea cliche like Web 2.0. And showing ONE EXAMPLE of a font used on a website doesn't really qualify as "fonts that have found popularity recently."
    • jaythree9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2no kidding. helvetica, fruitiger, DIN - those faces are older than the hills. standards, bar none. as far as popularity, it seems slab serifs in all caps are making a stand these days.
    • dylanparry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'd have to agree with you here. Some of these fonts are classics that just look nice in a plethora of situations. There's nothing particularly "new" about them, but then again the article was merely trying to showcase some of the nicer fonts that are being used in website logos today.

      Of course, the same fonts could just as easily be used within an offline setting, and they'd still be nice choices, imho.
  • spliffy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1don't most people usually use a combination of windows and mac fonts?

    not all of these are installed by default on most machines, so their use seems pretty limited to me.

    are people starting to embed fonts more these days? is there a way not to massively inflate the download size of a page or css file?
    • ashura001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Their use isn't limited when they're being used in a rasterized image like the ones in the article.
    • spliffy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1well thats kind of boring then....
  • nilobject, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Argh!

    Font = Helvetica Bold 12pt
    Typeface = Helvetica

    Calling a typeface a font is like saying that you're going to "drive your steering wheel to the cereal isle" when you really mean that you're going to "drive your car to the grocery store."
    • thatgirlismine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Argh!

      Isle = Island
      Aisle = Lane in a supermarket

      Calling an aisle an isle is like saying you're going to the cereal island when you mean to say that you're a dumbass.
  • stainboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ANTIQUE OLIVE NORD! ANTIQUE OLIVE NORD!!!!

    i'm just sayin'.
  • scrambled, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Where can I download American Typewriter?
  • daxsymbiont, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1"Web 2.0" sounds like the kind of phrase to come out from a 40 year old marketing nerd that just first used the interwebs and got excited about its wonderous world and fairy creatures.
  • munkeystump, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2haven't there been enough "dugg" articles explaining that web 2.0, in addition to being a crap buzz-word used to sooth timid Internet investors, is not about aesthetics?
  • thatgirlismine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Another great typeface that I just ran across yesterday is Gotham, which is a very art deco, yet simple sans serif. Apparently it was modeled after common signage types in New York several decades ago.

    Check out how its used in the logo for Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid:

    http://www.spudart.org/blog/images/2006/2016-chicago-olympics-logo.gif
  • csb92376, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Lame story ... non-standard fonts are still useless in web design, except for use within graphics... and exactly as the story depicts these "fonts" being used within the logos of the mentioned sites, that's about all the mileage you'd ever get out of 'em. Useless.
  • xswag, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2If a story is interesting enough for Digg then let someone other than the author submit the story. Instead, its the blog author that submits the story.

    Blog Spam is all this is. A pitiful attempt at traffic for an already lame site.
  • blackbookdesign, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12 good fonts on 9.... ?? get a hold of yourself... buy a typography book and study.
  • z0l0pht, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Vag?
    I gotta admit, I giggled.
  • iatokyo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Mr James: What's wrong with my site? Looking for trouble there, aren't you? ;)
  • ToddFFW, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3what about Comic Sans MS?

    </sarcasm>
  • iatokyo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Here is the typography nerd's suggestion: Future browsers should allow only serif (Georgia) and no serif (Arial), one font size (!) and one alternate cut (bold). Web designs would improve 500%. Because people would start caring about typography and not font selection. That's the truth.
  • slantyeyed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2we need a link for the "close enough" version that's free . . .
  • iatokyo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think in terms of fonts on the web, presently font rendering is much more important than the character itself. It is totally irrelevant what kind of font you choose it it looks all messed up in the browser.

    http://www.informationarchitects.jp/makku-and-pasocon

    That's what I am looking for in Vista. They promised us to pay more attention to font rendering. So finally websites look good on all platforms.
  • ChromaBlue, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Need a "Bury, uses the term 'web 2.0'" option.
  • eponym, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Too bad two of them are wrong.

    POPURLS is written in Trade Gothic Condensed. And TechCrunch is not in Frutiger.
  • kenmantx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Too bad you have to buy most of these.
  • zzzzbest, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1spam
  • IzeasGT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My fave's Futura (which, despite the name, is eighty years old). Why? Mainly because it was Stanley Kubrick's fave. :-)
  • pigsbladder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I found a couple of them by searching for the filename + .ttf
  • sanjangr, on 03/25/2008, -0/+0i got the fonts. anybody needs it. chk out my diggs
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.