Hey all..
exactly as it sounds.
currently using #fontface, lettering.js, and kern.js to get this word pretty and scalable.
would love to do all that and throw a pretty gradient on top.
thanks!
Yes - it works. The spans injected by lettering.js wrap the cufon elements, and any CSS created using kern.js will automatically apply.
I am using cufon as a fallback for browsers that don't support fontface, and it has worked fine with lettering.js.
For cufon use eg. letterSpacing: "-1px"
Related
My brain is overflow about this issue, so let me share my frustration in order to look for someone having the same experience and, luckily, finding a solution.
The thing is the following:
http://jsfiddle.net/w4d2E/
In chrome, percentages work fine, but when trying the same in Firefox (latest version) the content div is not expanding horizontally and vertically anymore.
I've analyzed every similar question over here, but I can't find any valid answer.
Thanks in advance
P.S.: I've tried to use block display instead of the 'box' one in the 'content' layer, but still having the same behavior.
You're using XUL box layout. I suggest not doing that. -moz-box is NOT CSS flexbox layout, as you seem to think.
The problem here is display: -moz-box for body. If you remove it everything works fine. It appears to be a bug, so I suggest filing a report in the bug tracker.
I have been scouring the web to try to find the "perfect" technique for this. Is there something I have missed that solves CSS on/off, unnecessary markup, and does not need a hack with older IE (I know that is pushing it)? I mainly want to replace a header logo. Thanks for the help!
The technique used in HTML5 Boilerplate is solid. Specifically:
http://html5boilerplate.com/docs/The-style/#ir
If you have a specific class on the element that need to be replaced, you can use this method:
http://www.audenaerde.org/csstricks.html#imagereplacecss
Works in all the browsers since IE6.
I found this website, and I can't figure out how they made the text animation on top work. It looks like jquery, but I can't figure out the code. Does anyone know what they used to make the keystrokes appear on this website?
http://nine2011.9elements.com/
Have a look at this:
http://www.burnmind.com/tutorials/typing/
The tutorial:
http://www.burnmind.com/howto/how-to-create-a-typing-effect-an-eraser-effect-and-a-blinking-cursor-using-jquery
That seems like exactly what you were looking for.
Looks like they fill the 'canvas' section by writing one div (each with one letter) at a time, and deleting them one at a time, using a Timer (maybe 250ms?) for each action. All possible using JavaScript document manipulation; easier with jQuery though.
I can't find a really good tutorial on how to do it with vanilla JavaScript, and there's always cross-browser quirks, so you'll just have to play around if you want to do a similar effect.
I have a site that requires Trade Gothic. I'm wondering if it's better practice to use #font-face or cufon with a font that looks similar to Trade Gothic or just go the image route. Obviously, using images will look better but what is better practice? For example, is replacing header titles with images like below bad?
<h2><span>title here</span></h2>
span { display:none }
h2 { background:url(image.jpg);display:block;height:x;width:y }
It depends on the strictness of your requirement and browser support within your target audience, especially if you want to support mobile devices.
If using a similar-looking font is good enough, the requirement may really be a nice-to-have feature, so anything that degrades gracefully should work. #font-face seems the easiest to implement (just CSS and font files) and it doesn't require Flash or JavaScript (good for mobile users). Google Web Fonts is a great resource or you may even be able to create your own web font using a generator like this one.
You'll have to decide what works best for the majority of your audience and weigh in how flexible the requirement is. If you use a JavaScript-based solution and the audience has it disabled, is that a deal-breaker? Image replacement is not inherently bad, but it can be tedious to maintain if you have much content to worry about (especially if it also changes often).
I use both.
I like to use Cufon for navigation and/or main heading elements, because I think it renders better (specifically in Windows).
For any sub-headers and other text, I use #font-face, so that users may select the text.
I'm currently replacing header images with #font face, as they can load quicker, and text is always more SEO friendly, however you must be careful when doing this as this increases http requests which can then take longer to load. Also there are some legal issue as to which fonts can be used for web.
However it is especially ideal when no other font will do.
FYI browser support for #font face has been available since IE 4, as far as I know.
Well, the most obvious advantage that #font-face and cufon have against the image replacement method that you mention is that they generate your text dynamically and you don't have to create an image for each text that you want to replace.
Take a look here:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/692990/sifr-vs-cufon-vs-typeface-js
See here: http://code.google.com/p/ie7-js/
Does anyone have any experience or remarks about this javascript? Is it worth including? Do you recommend it?
I know many people, myself included that are using various IE hacks to get transparent PNG support. THis looks like a little bit more help, and as long as it works, and the size is fairly small, I wouldn't see much against using it.
I've used it before, and my results are mixed. Those scripts cause IE to churn for a bit on page load. Basically, you have to think of it as iterating through Elements and stylesheet rules to apply "fixes" for areas that are deficient in that particular rendering engine. In some cases, depending on how complicated your markup or stylesheets are, that can take a bit of time and you will see the browser hang.
That said, if you can trade off that performance cost, you will save development time as you'll spend less time hacking around IE6 quirks; IE7/IE8 will provide enough missing functionality that you can avoid certain edge cases, can develop using standards better (min-width/min-height, multiple className selectors, etc.), and certain rendering issues will disappear.
However, if you just need 24-bit transparent PNG support, use a tool built for that. Including IE7/IE8.js for PNG support alone is like pounding in a nail with a tank. Use DD_belatedPNG for that.
It works, but its worth keeping in mind that ie7.js and ie8.js do much more than provide transparent PNG support. Even with the transparent PNG support, its worth keeping in mind that transparent background images cannot be tiled (repeated) using background-repeat or positioned using background-position. This hinders any ability to use CSS rollovers using background-position. I've only used it on one site I've done, and now that I'm updating the site I can't remove the ie8.js because if I do the entire website breaks layout in IE. I don't believe I'll be using it in the future, and instead rely on simple CSS hacks or simply allow my sites to "degrade gracefully" in IE6.
I know that there are some tools for fixing the transparent PNG problem which are more flexible than this. For instance, the jQuery plugin ifixpng2 will support background position, which ie7-js doesn't do.
As long as you are aware of exactly what it fixes, I would say go for it. I'm not sure about this lib exactly, but some libs get very expensive if you have a large DOM, as they tend to hook in HTC file base behaviors on EVERY DOM Element. This causes the dreaded "Loading x of y" status bar message to flash constantly on the initial load, and any newly generated DOM content.
well its beautiful and works grate way u can use cs3 features like li:hover. we did lost of project last time using ie8.js and it works great way.