×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Make Your Own Fonts, In a Web Browser

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the cool-idea dept.

Graphics 147

Dekortage writes "Although it's been up for a few weeks, today is the official launch of FontStruct, a web-based font creation tool. That's right: in your web browser, you can build your own typeface, and download it as a TrueType font. The site's user agreement requires you to release your creations online under one of the Creative Commons licenses. The typefaces tend to be a little blocky, but it's still impressive (and a great way to pass time)."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

147 comments

kinda clunky, but LOTS of fun! (3, Interesting)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 5 years ago | (#23342894)

I went there, signed up and built a very basic font. Very pleased. It's NOT great font work, but it's fun and could be very useful in an intro to type and typography class, or for high school students.

RS

First (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23342896)

Ugly font.

Great (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23342918)

Just what we need ... the ability for websites to easily create their own font, ignoring the hundreds of years that have gone into perfecting typography.

Re:Great (2, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343040)

Furthermore, creating a typeface that is actually in this day and age when the Internet goes beyond North America and Western European countries requires wide Unicode coverage, but I imagine (I haven't RTFA) that the people toying around with this are producing only ASCII/Basic Latin fonts, exactly what we don't need.

Re:Great (4, Interesting)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343288)

Who is "we"?...

You just typed out about 50 words using what you "don't need"...

Granted, nothing ground breaking as far as font creation goes is going to come of this website... but if anyone is serious about making typography isn't going to be using some web-based font creating tool... as the original/first poster said, this is great for younger people/inexperienced users as an introduction to typography...

Besides, since the actual site is slashdotted (at this moment) maybe it can handle more advanced typesets... I watched the little video, and I was impressed that it wasn't just 1-0, A-Z, a-z but what seemed to be the full set...

However, I do find this sort of disturbing, or "cheap" because it desregards the hundreds (thousands?) of years that have gone into designing fonts... and that it is still rather limited until its vector-based...

As a side note: http://www.helveticafilm.com/ [helveticafilm.com] is an interesting documentary on the history of a single font (at least i found it interesting)

Re:Great (5, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343364)

You just typed out about 50 words using what you "don't need"...

Because I was responding to a poster in English with just English words. However, most of the writing I do online requires the use of multiple languages, many requiring letters present in Unicode Latin Extended A and B and the upper ranges of the Cyrillic block. I'd rather see more people using e.g. the DejaVu fonts [sourceforge.net], which look just as good as the Bitstream Vera the Free Software community already took to its heart, but which at least has that Unicode coverage there if you should ever need it.

Re:Great (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 5 years ago | (#23344940)

You are more than welcome to make fonts which incorporate letters from whatever alphabets you want. I dunno if this tool lets you do this since the site has been given a thorough slashdotting (but it should).

Besides, it's not like someone is going to make "Comic Sans 2" and it will take the world by storm overnight and MS will start shipping it with Vista.

Re:Great (0)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343446)

This is not meant to be too pedantic, but... ;)
In "actually in this day and age", the prepositional phrase had me looking for an adjective subsequent to the adverb.
Possible rephrase: "creating a contemporary typeface, when..."
Long day in a long week in a long (already) year.

Re:Great (1, Flamebait)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#23344592)

creating a typeface that is actually in this day and age when the Internet goes beyond North America and Western European countries requires wide Unicode coverage
Why would I need to create glyphs for Chinese characters if I'm not selling my product in Japan, China, or Taiwan? Or Tamil, if I'm not selling my product in South India?

Re:Great (2, Funny)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#23345182)

Or Tamil, if I'm not selling my product in South India
Because you're selling your product in Sri Lanka?

Re:Great (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#23345178)

Who cares if your website font supports unicode when all your content only contains unaccented characters from the English alphabet.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23344306)

Where's my 16pt fixed-width font then. Pixel density has gone up these days, and setting windows to anything other than 96dpi breaks stuff. Therefore I look for larger fixed-width (terminal) fonts.

Re:Great (1)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 5 years ago | (#23345342)

Just what we need ... the ability for websites to easily create their own font, ignoring the hundreds of years that have gone into perfecting typography.
Yes, resulting in tons of inter-office e-mails being formatted in Comic Sans [bancomicsans.com].

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23342934)

Governing how you can use your creation???

What the fuck?

I suggest not using it.

They can't do that (4, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#23342958)

There's no part of copyright law that allows a tool creator to dictate how the output of the tool can be licensed.. unless, of course, there's some significant amount of copyrightable material being added to the output above and beyond what the user of the tool is supplying. For example, a compiler compiler will generate code from the input CFG and embed additional code in the output that was written by the author of the tool, so this could be claimed as his copyright, but the generated code, no matter how well it was generated, is a result of the CFG writer, and is therefore his copyright.

Of course, none of this has been tested in court.

Re:They can't do that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23343038)

Couldn't it just be part of the EULA or something?

Re:They can't do that (3, Informative)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343078)

The site is /.ed at the moment, so I can't tell if you have to use their servers for the processing or even read their user agreement. But, all they have to do is tell you that whatever you create on their site they will keep a copy of and release, and if you agree, you relinquish copyright.

If you want to retain full ownership, do it at home.

Re:They can't do that (1, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343252)

Click through contracts are rarely enforcible.

Re:They can't do that (4, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343544)

Click through contracts are rarely enforcible.
... if the click is expected after delivery of end product and receipt of payment. This would be a contract you click before you get the end product... and there's not even any payment!

Re:They can't do that (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#23344640)

But, all they have to do is tell you that whatever you create on their site they will keep a copy of and release, and if you agree, you relinquish copyright.
Ouch. I'd be willing to license my work under GPL/CC-BY-SA with the standard font exception [fsf.org]. I just see too many problems with the Creative Commons licenses, especially the provision allowing an author to force downstream distributors to remove any copyright notice that credits the author. (I can explain this provision in more detail if you wish.)

Re:They can't do that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23343272)

Well, at least its just a CC license. You can separately work out an agreement with any third party for commercial use anyways. Most importantly, no one is forcing you to use their website if you dont agree with their terms.

On a related subject, read what item #11 of the google terms of service says (http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS) and weep.

Re:They can't do that (4, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343290)

There's no part of copyright law that allows a tool creator to dictate how the output of the tool can be licensed

Who needs copyright? If you don't agree to the terms, they simply won't generate the font file for you. Just because they don't have copyright over the final result, it doesn't mean they are compelled to provide you with service.

Re:They can't do that (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23343326)

I think part of the reason for requiring the CC license is because as part of the site, your font shows up as a font that was recently created. In other words, by creating the font, you're submitting that user-created content to the community. If you're submitting it to the community, they require that it be released under a license where people can actually use the font.

(So, essentially, "if you don't like it, don't post" except that when you create, it posts automatically.)

But why CC? (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#23344668)

If you're submitting it to the community, they require that it be released under a license where people can actually use the font.
Then why Creative Commons, when the GNU GPL for fonts [gnu.org] is better known and more clearly allows embedding of the font in, say, a Free computer program?

Re:They can't do that (2, Informative)

Lanoitarus (732808) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343512)

You'd be correct if they were SELLING the tool, which they are not.

However, if their agreement for use says in exchange for free use of the tool, the result is XYZ license, and you agree to that, then yes, its legal for them to require it.

This is aside from the other replies addressing the fact that the server side probably does have some amount of creative input.

Re:They can't do that (2, Informative)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343606)


>Of course, none of this has been tested in court.

Hardly anything has been more thoroughly tested in court than the rights reserved under copyright law,
and the effect of licensing those rights.

Re:They can't do that (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23343772)

IANAL, but my understanding is that fonts cannot be copyrighted, I had previously believed that it was for free speech reasons (what if someone copyrighted every font? also, what's the real difference between a letter in a font and a letter spoken in a certain way?), but googling found that to not be the reason [about.com] they aren't copyrightable here.

Re:They can't do that (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343932)

fonts cannot be copyrighted

This is incorrect. A typeface cannot be copyrighted (in the USA), but the implementation of that typeface in a scalable font can be, as the Copyright Office considers them to be computer programs. This means that you can take a TTF font, draw your own that looks exactly like it and distribute the result, but you cannot distribute the original font file.

Re:They can't do that (0, Offtopic)

rs79 (71822) | more than 5 years ago | (#23344004)

The canonical referece of font copyright status was written by Chuck Bigelow (of Lucida fame) back in the late 80s on comp.fonts (brag) which I created (/brag).

Re:They can't do that-gcc example (2, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#23344308)

There's no part of copyright law that allows a tool creator to dictate how the output of the tool can be licensed.

You make a good point. Suppose it was demanded that everything compiled under gcc had to be open-sourced? That probably wouldn't go over too well with everybody.

Re:They can't do that-gcc example (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#23345252)

What about everything using the QT libraries to be open source, unless you pay them a hefty license fee? Or what about programs linking to MySQL client libraries that are required to be open source?

Re:They can't do that (1)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 5 years ago | (#23344312)

Right, and that is what User Agreements are for, to create your own rules.

There is also no part in copyright law that says computers can copy anything because they aren't human. Every time a browser renders a document, Google caches a web site, a printer "receives" a document, or a graphics card transfers data, they are violating copyright law. Even this FontStruct app is copied and run on your computer, and it cannot be done any other way. The illusion of non-violation is created by abstraction, but there is no exception clause in copyright law that says any of this is OK. Of course, unless there is a loss, theoretically no one can cause "damages", and computers cannot "own" anything, but "deleting it later" is legally not a good enough excuse.

Laws do not enforce themselves, so how they are enforced and who enforces them is a bigger part of law enforcement than the specific nature of the laws themselves. This is often contrary to the intent of those that made them.

Re:They can't do that (2, Informative)

jbengt (874751) | more than 5 years ago | (#23345418)

Every time a browser renders a document, Google caches a web site, a printer "receives" a document, or a graphics card transfers data, they are violating copyright law
No, in the USA at least, the law explicitly allows the transient copies made by computers, network transfers, etc. Google cahces are a little les clear, though.

METAFONT (4, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#23342968)

Why not use Metafont [utah.edu]? Vastly more powerful, and available for free on any platform TeX is.

Re:METAFONT (5, Informative)

stubear (130454) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343088)

Apparently you've never created a font before. It's not a process where you set a few parameters and cross your fingers. A proper type face has specially styled italics characters, not just skewed ones, proper kerning, different weights and sizes for captions and headlines, etc. OpenType has opened up the type world to many new alternative possibilities with swashes, stylistic alternatives, tabular and old-style lined numerals and a whole slew of other options for designers to take advantage of in their work. I just don't see metafont making the process of font creation any easier than say FontLab.

Re:METAFONT (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23343444)

All that's really needed to create a font is a piece of paper and a pencil. Oh, and some creativity. Of course, after you have the basics done, then you get to have the joy of digitizing it and setting all of the kerning pairs, creating ligatures, contextual alternatives, lining and/or tabular figures, tweaking the stresses, etc etc etc. Or you could just doodle a bit in the online equivalent of MS Paint and call yourself a "type designer", which I'm sure is what many here at slashdot will do.

Re:METAFONT (0, Offtopic)

stubear (130454) | more than 5 years ago | (#23344776)

Very true, and nothing I specified was necessarily exclusive to the digital world. In fact, one of the best type designers I've ever met still uses pencil and paper to design his fonts and logos (http://doyaldyoung.com/).

Fonts are hard work (3, Insightful)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343848)

Indeed, indeed.

There's a reason that professionally designed, usability-centered type families cost hundreds of dollars [fonts.com] -- they take many months of careful planning, experimentation (often through scientific trials [clearviewhwy.com]), and adjustment to bring from concept to completion.

It is no more possible to quickly design a good typeface online than it is to quickly design a good CRM system and database backend using an easy online construction kit.

Re:Fonts are hard work (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 5 years ago | (#23344438)

It is no more possible to quickly design a good typeface online than it is to quickly design a good CRM system and database backend using an easy online construction kit.


That doesn't stop people from trying. Fortunately, you usually don't need to deal with the results of do-it-yourself fonts.

Re:Fonts are hard work (1)

gnupun (752725) | more than 5 years ago | (#23344736)

There's a reason that professionally designed, usability-centered type families cost hundreds of dollars [fonts.com] -- they take many months of careful planning, experimentation (often through scientific trials [clearviewhwy.com]), and adjustment to bring from concept to completion.
If history is any indicator, cheap, especially free, is often preferable to a higher-priced quality product.

Re:METAFONT (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343868)

But Metafont does those things. Maybe you're confusing it with some generic X Windows fonts that didn't have kerning or italics and such?

One snag with Metafont is that you have to be spend a lot of time with it and it's not designed for the casual user. You define fonts mathematically with it, so even graphic artists used to creating fonts may not like it. The other snag is that it doesn't easily convert to the commonly used vector-outline fonts (Postscript, TrueType, etc) since it uses pen strokes instead of outlines.

Re:METAFONT (2, Informative)

zsau (266209) | more than 5 years ago | (#23344872)

That's precisely the point behind METAFONT. It's meant so that you can specify the basic shape of the letters and a shitload of parameters, and you'll get a lot of italic letters ("n" or "i", but not "a" and "z"), weights, sizes etc. essentially for free. Obviously some things still need to be done manually; I doubt you could generate old style or lining figures from the same source.

The problem with METAFONT is that most people can't design something graphical without seeing it; and that there's a lot of work involved in correctly parameterising a font. But as evidence that it's possible, that's precisely how Computer Modern is designed, which comes with bold, italic and small caps fonts and distinct sizes from very small to title case. I personally don't like the look of Computer Modern — or any "modern" font — but Knuth's done it.

because 90% of the world cant use it (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23343338)

But this being a web application (like gmail/calendar/docs) it only needs a dom based browser to have fun with (which is "everyone",more or less right?) and supports the most common font format on the planet by default, truetype .ttf

Metafont isn't like any of those easy requirements, it doesnt "just work" for "everyone", it could, but it doesn't, so it fails.

thats why not METAFONT

Re:because 90% of the world cant use it (1)

dasuser (1173323) | more than 5 years ago | (#23344218)

But this being a web application (like gmail/calendar/docs) it only needs a dom based browser to have fun with (which is "everyone",more or less right?) and supports the most common font format on the planet by default, truetype .ttf
But it also needs Flash. The entire UI is in Flash, which isn't exactly a "Web Standard". For a .ttf maker that actually uses nothing but Javascript, try the BitfontMaker. [pentacom.jp]

Would've Been Cool (5, Informative)

vertigoCiel (1070374) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343012)

About 10 years ago, when pixel fonts were all the rage. If you didn't check the site out, it allows you to create fonts in a NxN grid, using predefined primitives (circles, stars, rounded corners, etc). Not a whole lot of variety possible. If they came up with a vector-based online font creation tool, that would be something I could get excited about.

nothing wrong with pixel fonts... (5, Interesting)

Animaether (411575) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343482)

especially if you can make them really, really tiny but still 'legible' (often requiring context of nearby letters, granted). I made one - it's used in graphics and licensed by one party for print ('read the fineprint' takes on a whole new meaning when the font is baseline 3 pixels tall.)

Other than that, pixel fonts are still routinely used in games - simply because rendering a vector font is more expensive than rendering a sprite.

Re:Would've Been Cool (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 5 years ago | (#23344022)

" If they came up with a vector-based online font creation tool, that would be something I could get excited about."

Um, yeah. Call me when they do PS Type 1 fonts with hinting.

Re:Would've Been Cool (1)

amirulbahr (1216502) | more than 5 years ago | (#23345092)

How about some software that you train with scans of your handwriting and it generates a vector font based on your own handwriting.

Now that would be cool.

pl0s 4, Troll) (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23343110)

every day...Like dead. It is a dead BUWLA, or BSD it ha5 to be fun said. 'Screaming BSD addicts, flame eulogies to BSD's During play, this and shouting that use the Sling. you down. It was sling, return it to OF AMERICA) is the fellow travellers? session and join in erosion of user goals I personally bureaucratic and NIGGER ASSOCIATION

Why would anyone post this on slashdot? (3, Insightful)

astrashe (7452) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343134)

There's no way a site like this could withstand heavy traffic. I don't know why the editors would sink it like this.

It will probably be dead for days now.

Re:Why would anyone post this on slashdot? (5, Funny)

Bragador (1036480) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343374)

You must be new here...

Slashdot is now an experimental weapon to take over the intertubes. Its aim is to supplant even the biggest of botnets.

We are succeeding... one website at a time.

Now you see it... (1)

The Ancients (626689) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343276)

...now you don't.

Pointing /. at a user-interactive site like this is going to cause tears. Lots of tears. Well, tears, or lots of heat from their servers.

The home page is now serving up:

404. Not found The requested address was not found on this server.

I guess I'll bookmark it and come back tomorrow.

Re:Now you see it... (2, Funny)

YukiCuss (960733) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343296)

I guess I'll bookmark it and come back tomorrow.
You and the rest of the world, unfortunately. The second Slashdotting, as it were.

Broken discussion system is still broken. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23343280)

Note to Slashdot admins: please fix!

Thanks,
Your /. readership

* 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

To confirm you're not a script, please type the word in this image: distorts

This is great. (3, Insightful)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343322)

This is great. You no longer just have to waste time trying to find the font that is just right. Now, you can waste even more time by building it exactly the way you want.

Re:This is great. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23343388)

I don't know how many times font forge has made for many an unproductive day.

Passing time (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343390)

Is it a great way to pass time in the same way that your urethra is a great way to pass a kidney stone?

Just wondering. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23343416)

innovative site called FontStruct has been slashdoted in a record time of 3 seconds since posting the story.

but .. but .. why ? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23343418)

No, rly, it boggles my mind. Why would one ever want to create another font ? About ten of them is roughly enough for all sane intents and purposes.

Re:but .. but .. why ? (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343920)

Apparently you don't know any graphic designers. After you use the same font about a thousand times, you get sick to all hell of it. Using the same font over and over again makes your work look repetetive, boring, and not as much fun as it should be. Using unique fonts can put some originality back in your work.

Of course, that mainly applies to display fonts. Text fonts are pretty limited in their design because they need to be legible.

Re:but .. but .. why ? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23345146)

Which is why I hate graphic designers. They put the shiny above the usable.

Not that you don't need them, or that they don't do good work, but a lot of design should be boring. "I got bored" is not a good reason to use one font rather than another.

Graphic designers do a job. If they want to create art, that's something they can do on their own time.

Re:but .. but .. why ? (2, Insightful)

Dekortage (697532) | more than 5 years ago | (#23345430)

There's a troll if I ever read one.

A bad graphic designer puts the shiny above the usable. A good graphic designer recognizes when a bit of shiny actually enhances the results -- and for a designer and fonts, it may be that too many other people are using a font, so it no longer stands out. When WIRED Magazine launched, they made the then-fresh Myriad typeface popular, and Apple adopted it not long afterwards. Now it's everywhere (and is even the default chosen typeface in many Adobe apps). So what was fresh before, is boring and mundane now.

Re:but .. but .. why ? (1)

zsau (266209) | more than 5 years ago | (#23345272)

There is a huge range of legible text fonts. The limits are more by tradition and custom — no-one would set a book in Courier or (nowadays) fraktur, and sans-serif fonts are used only rarely; this is not because they're illegible, but because these styles are not common in extensive text.

But even limiting ourselves to conventional serif fonts, there's still a massive range of fonts. Anyone who can't see the difference doesn't care. Not a problem for the reader, but it is a problem for the book's designer. (Personally, I hate so-called modern fonts. Fortunately, you mostly only ever see them in stuff produced by TeX.)

Re:but .. but .. why ? (1)

cowscows (103644) | more than 5 years ago | (#23344008)

Probably the same reason why there are fourteen thousand different text editors out there that I could download. Because curiosity leads people to create things.

Time to make a Mohammet Font (4, Funny)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343456)

That will be banned in many middle east countries and the Netherlands and will cause as Fatwa against me.

Ever letter will be an image of old mo' and if you change your default web browser font to it you will make all 72 virgins in heaven cry.

Re:Time to make a Mohammet Font (1)

spungebob (239871) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343856)

Fantastic idea! I'm sure the Pentagon will be extremely interested in your Mo' font as their newest anti-terrorism tool. By using the font for their sensitive battlefield communications they can eliminate the need for clunky and time-consuming encryption as the Islamic extremists would never be able to allow themselves to read any of the messages.

A new twist on the old adage that the best place to hide is in plain sight.

Re:Time to make a Mohammet Font (1)

bugfreezer (1088369) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343946)

Heh - as long as you print the communications - those pesky taliban just might have someone who can use a hex editor or otherwise change the font.

Re:Time to make a Mohammet Font (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 5 years ago | (#23344168)

Simple just embed it is a PDF file and make the font maditory for the PDF reader software to use the font.

Re:Time to make a Mohammet Font (1)

rossz (67331) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343906)

I'd like a copy of that when you finish making it. Any opportunity to annoy hypersensitive religious assholes is time well spent.

Tried it and... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23343480)

I tried creating a font and the typeset downloaded only included the following characters:

S L A H O T E D

What words can I compose with that... dunno.

Re:Tried it and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23345234)

ae ah al ale ales aloe aloes als also alt altho alto altos alts as ash at ate ates east eat eath eats eh el els es et eta etas eth ethos eths ha hae haes haet haets hale hales halest halo haloes halos halt halts hao haole haoles has haslet hast haste hat hate hates hats he heal heals heat heats helo helos helot helots hes hest het hets ho hoe hoes hole holes hols holt holts hose hosel host hosta hostel hot hotel hotels hots la las lase lash last lat late lath lathe lathes laths lats lea leas leash least lest let lets lo loath loathe loathes lose lost lot lota lotah lotahs lotas loth lots oast oat oath oaths oats oe oes oh ohs ole olea oles os ose osteal sae sal sale salt sat sate sea seal seat sel selah set seta setal sh sha shale shalt shat she shea sheal shelta sheol shoal shoat shoe shot shote slat slate sloe slot sloth so sol sola solate sole sot soth stale steal stela stoa stoae stole ta tae tael taels tale tales tao taos tas tea teal teals teas tel tela telos tels tesla thae the tho thole tholes those to toe toea toeas toes tola tolas tole toles tosh

ad ado ados ads ahold aholds dah dahl dahls dahs dal dals dash dato datos dhal dhals do doat doats dol dols dolt dolts dos dost dot dotal doth dots had hadst hod hods hold holds lad lads load loads od ods old olds sad shad shod sod soda sold tad tads toad toads tod tods told

Works great for me... (0, Redundant)

Namlak (850746) | more than 5 years ago | (#23343764)

It's a little slow but, so far, it has output the following characters for me:

S e r v N o t R s p n d i g

Don't Like The Forced CC License (2, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#23344272)

Much as I like OSS, I don't like the forced approach here to requiring you to license your creative work for free. Encourage it sure, but to force it? Suppose you just want your own personal font? It won't be yours here, since anyone else can have it too.

Even if they had just said you can't make it here for free and then sell it for money on your own I'd feel better about that. That way my own font could remain my own.

So while it's a nice idea, couldn't they have been a little less heavy-handed about it?

Re:Don't Like The Forced CC License (1)

gnupun (752725) | more than 5 years ago | (#23344682)

Much as I like OSS, I don't like the forced approach here to requiring you to license your creative work for free.
Few things in life are free and FontStruct wants you to work for free in return for access to this tool... a bad deal. Fonts sell for $20 to $50 per user, per font. If this site gets popular, we'll be stuck with mediocre fonts designed by amateurs while the creators of quality fonts will be out of business. Thanks, OSS.

Re:Don't Like The Forced CC License (1)

stewf (1286436) | more than 5 years ago | (#23345236)

I'm very sorry the site's not live right now so you can see that very few fonts made with FontStruct can be replacements for commercial fonts. It's a tool for creating modular typefaces -- a very specific genre of type design.

Re:Don't Like The Forced CC License (5, Informative)

stewf (1286436) | more than 5 years ago | (#23345162)

Hi. I'm part of the FontShop team responsible for FontStruct. We're down right now (for obvious reasons -- ouch!) or I'd link you directly to the FAQ page on licensing, but I'll try to clarify it here.

There is no requirement to license your work. New FontStructions are private by default and you can download it for yourself to your heart's content. Only when you choose to make it public do you need to select a CC license.

i did this on my page (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23344644)

made you look! ha ha!
 
you're probably a bitch ass trick anyway. or a star wars fag. go suck that dick faggot.

Papyrus and Comic Sans.... (1)

Ardeaem (625311) | more than 5 years ago | (#23344714)

Who needs to create new fonts? Papyrus and Comic Sans are the only fonts we need!

Offline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23344874)

This should be made into some sort of offline software. It doesn't really need to be online at all.

Re:Offline (1)

stewf (1286436) | more than 5 years ago | (#23345190)

The editor doesn't need to be online, but half the point of FontStruct is the sharing, cloning, and collaboration tools that make the most sense on the web.

But you can't download them in the browser (2, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#23345324)

But you still can't download fonts in the browser as part of an HTML document.

That used to work, back in the early days of Mozilla. Microsoft refused to put it in IE, and came up with their own, incompatible system. Mozilla then took theirs out.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...