On Web Typography
Issue № 296

On Web Typography

There are many books and articles on typography, but considerably few explore typeface selection and pairing. With the floodgates poised to open and the promise of many typefaces being freed up for use on websites, choosing the right face to complement a website’s design will need to become another notch in the designer’s belt. But where do we start?

Article Continues Below

Until now, using any typefaces beyond those installed with computer operating systems by default meant using images, Flash, or some other workaround. But browser makers have put the ball in our court by implementing the @font-face CSS property, which allows designers to link to any font file and pull it into their pages.

This exposed the elephant in the type foundry: Type makers have largely refused to license their raw typefaces on webpages out of concerns about piracy. The @font-face implementation has brought this concern to the forefront, prompting all parties to figure out a mutually copacetic solution. And many solutions are either available or in the works, ranging from augmented font end-user license agreements to hosted third-party font services such as Typekit, Typotheque, and Kernest. Web designers get more options for type, and foundries and type designers make money off of their creations. Problem solved, right? Sorta.

Brave new world#section2

We’ve been spoiled. Until now, chances are that if you dropped some text onto a webpage in a system font at a reasonable size, it was legible. What’s more, we know the ins and outs of the faces we’ve been forced to use. But many faces to which we’ll soon have access were never meant for screen use, either because they’re aesthetically unsuitable or because they’re just plain illegible.

The technical problems with web type also run deep. Inconsistent rendering across browsers and platforms is a substantial hurdle, as are the problems inherent in serving a font file, or more likely a font family: Page sizes can easily jump to 100k and higher. But let’s assume for a moment that these problems will get smoothed out in short order so that we can focus on what to do after that happens.

There’s a serious possibility that by gaining access to the world’s font libraries, we’re opening Pandora’s Box. Many people working on the web today have some knowledge of typography, but my hunch is that many designers are about to feel quite baffled by the new challenges they face.

Context and meaning#section3

Being a web designer will soon require a deeper understanding of typography and how typefaces work. As we move in this direction, our options may be limited at first, but the pool of choices will steadily grow. And as we know, with great power comes great responsibility. Just because you can use the font that looks like it’s wearing bellbottoms, doesn’t mean you should.

The system fonts we commonly use such as Georgia, Verdana, and Arial have become so ubiquitous that any associations we might have with them other than “web” are pretty much gone. The aesthetic expression we were unable to achieve due to scant selection afforded us time to hone legibility on a grand scale. This has largely made the web a “set it and forget it” world, in part due to the rapid state of publishing, but also because we don’t have the fine control over typography that we have in print design.

Picky, picky#section4

Using a typeface because it looks interesting might yield acceptable results, but really practicing the art of typography involves understanding typefaces and what they mean. Picking a good-enough face isn’t that hard, but choosing an appropriate one that fits comfortably within societal and technical concerns can be tough.

Notable type designer Zuzana Licko once said “We read best what we read most.” This notion rings true in our learned behavior, but also reveals the reason for the typographer’s toughest challenge: Reading is a personal and relative act. Reading a long passage in a blackletter face that was considered “readable” centuries ago would take us considerably more time than if that passage was set in a basic serif face. Most of what we read now is set in simple serif and sans serif typefaces, whether in print or online.

Beyond the question of readability, much of typography comes down to contrast and form. The details of a typeface can inject meaning into a design: Soft lines and stroke weights, for example, can be useful for delicate material or to give an air of elegance and dignity. Those same attributes can be juxtaposed with unexpected content to produce an ironic effect.

Here’s a list of qualities and methods to keep in mind as you venture into the widening world of web type.

The drop dead guide to choosing and pairing typefaces#section5

As we look to our coffers for new selections of typefaces, the smart money stays true to what we know: Find typefaces that are in our general realm of readability—the ones we use and read on a daily basis. Anything that hits on those points on the “legibility spectrum” (possibly a four quadrant graph) will be best, and will be easier to read. The farther we veer away from that, the more difficult our designs will be to read. That’s not to say there isn’t a wide gray area of legibility.


Contrast is probably the most important thing to keep in mind. When pairing typefaces, it’s important to be able to tell that there are two distinct typefaces in play, but contrast has other uses as well. Very different typefaces can play off of each other in complementary ways or resist each other to create a bit of tension, while typefaces that appear too similar can weaken the message and confuse a design’s visual language.

The basics of body text#section7

When choosing typefaces, I like to start by picking a text face for body copy, as this is what a reader will spend the most time looking at. For body copy, look for typefaces that are sturdy and legible at smaller sizes, and for those that have a healthy contrast between characters.

The best text faces generally have some personality, but not so much that it distracts us from the content or experience of reading. Typefaces that have a lot of personality are better reserved for display sizes, as they can become cumbersome to read in longer passages.

Read me#section8

As text gets smaller, a slightly larger x-height and contrast can go a long way.

The usual conventions to selecting type apply for on screen use too, but due to the disparity in quality between the screen and a printed page, those conventions should be followed even more closely on screen, and possibly even exaggerated a little. High x-heights and a strong character body help keep your texts legible, even at small sizes. For instance, Verdana and Georgia, both proven screen typefaces, have a larger x-height and a bit more space between the letters so that text retains clarity even at small sizes.

What’s the message?#section9

This movie poster from the double feature, Grindhouse, uses lots of different typefaces and styles, but does so in imitation of the kinds of posters that were emblematic of late 1970s exploitation films.

One helpful way to understand what you are designing for is to write down a general description of the qualities of the message you are trying to convey, and then look for typefaces that embody those qualities. If you are designing something serious, a playful handwritten display typeface probably won’t work. But a sturdy typeface such as Franklin Gothic could convey stability and strength while imparting an air of importance.

One typeface can be enough to say what you need to say, and two is usually plenty. If you are using more than that, have a good reason—like trying to achieve a certain aesthetic—such as replicating the look of an old boxing, film, or music poster, for example.

One sans, one serif#section10

Bodoni and Futura have very different looking letterforms, but their structure is based on the same basic geometric principles.

One of the easiest ways to quickly create balance and contrast in typography is to choose a serif and sans serif pairing. It’s a simple, easily managed combination that can produce a cohesive look to the text if you select the right typefaces.

It’s not a hard and fast rule, but typefaces from the same designer can sometimes work very well together. As in two paintings from the same artist, sometimes you can see the designer’s hand in two typefaces they’ve made. Eric Gill’s Perpetua and Gill Sans work well together because they share some of the same strokes and curves. Similarly, typefaces that were made to be paired, like Meta Sans and Meta Serif, often work well together.

Combining more than one display or script typeface is usually a bad idea. There are exceptions to every rule, but these typefaces usually have so much personality that one is plenty and two could confuse the mood of the text.

Look for typefaces that were designed on similar principles. For instance, despite looking quite different, Futura and Bodoni can make a great pair because they were both inspired by simple geometric forms.

Baskerville and Futura, “old” juxtaposed with “new.”

Alternatively, finding two divergent typefaces can create new meaning or an interesting juxtaposition, as long as the contrast is strong. Pairing a transitional typeface like Baskerville with a more modern face like Futura could create an interesting statement on the idea of old vs. new.

Explore different styles#section11

Type families such as Mark Simonson’s Proxima Nova contain a variety of weights which can be helpful in creating a design with diverse and flexible typographic possibilities.

Choosing typeface families with a good selection of weights and styles gives you more flexibility without needing to introduce more typefaces. Play a bold off of a light or italic weight for contrast, or try all caps or small caps with a bit of letter-spacing for a subhead. If you choose typefaces that only contain a single weight, you may find it very difficult to create the contrast that a passage requires to adequately distinguish sections visually.

To the library!#section12

Many typefaces have an inherent connection with a cultural period or subculture. Depending on what you’re creating, this could be an advantage or a disadvantage. It’s always best to follow up on potential typeface choices by finding out where and when, and for what purpose they were made. Sometimes a typeface can have the right “look” but evoke the wrong connotations. For instance, Trajan has been appropriated as the typeface of choice for epic, thriller, romantic, comedy, and well, any kind of film, despite being nearly 1900 years old and Roman. Blackletter typefaces have long been a staple of heavy metal bands or anything that needs to feel “scary” or “dark.” Understand these cultural implications so that you can either avoid them or use them intelligently to bring clarity to your viewers.

Money, honey#section13

We’ve been so accustomed to using system fonts that many web professionals balk at the idea of paying for fonts. But even when you use the typefaces that come with your computer, you’re using typefaces that you’ve paid to license—those costs are included in the price of your operating system. There are many free fonts out there, but most of them are free for a reason: They’re often fine at display sizes, but kerning and hinting might not be up to snuff and many aren’t complete or robust enough to be used in a serious way. Solid typefaces, like almost anything else of quality, usually cost money.

Trust your gut#section14

Sometimes a pair of typefaces just looks or feels right together, even though you’re not sure why. These are guidelines, not laws: there are a myriad of types and styles, and sometimes you’ll be surprised what typefaces work together even when logic says they shouldn’t.

Ever forward!#section15

The number of typefaces available to us increases every day. If your favorite font isn’t available yet, chances are it will be soon enough, though the problem of licensing, delivering, and selecting web fonts won’t be figured out overnight.

As more typefaces hit the scene, we need to understand how they can best serve our designs, and to push ourselves to move beyond mere novelty in our selections. If much of the web is made up of text—and it is—web typography can be a very powerful tool indeed.

Further Reading on Web Fonts#section16

About the Author

Jason Santa Maria

Jason Santa Maria is a graphic designer with a deep love for letters. He’s the founder of Brooklyn-based design firm Mighty; a faculty member at SVA’s MFA Interaction Design program; a cofounder of A Book Apart; and the founder of Typedia, a shared online encyclopedia of typefaces. Previously, he cofounded the collaborative writing platform Editorially; he also served as the vice president of AIGA/NY and as the creative director for A List Apart and Typekit. He has designed websites that balance beauty and usability for clients such as AIGA, The Chicago Tribune, Housing Works, Miramax Films, The New York Stock Exchange, PBS, The United Nations, and WordPress. He discusses design on his award-winning website. He can be found on Twitter @jasonsantamaria.

26 Reader Comments

  1. I can’t help but fantasize that if IKEA had access to Typekit they may not have switched to Verdana.

    Jason – you have articulated the blessing / curse of emerging typographic control. As web publishing becomes more “turn-key” (Drupal Gardens, free WordPress themes etc.) the “everybody is a designer” effect could be an aesthetic disaster. A “Pandora’s box” as you say. However — while similar typographic anxieties arose with desktop publishing in the 80’s (and came true) — In the end a demand was created for trained designers with a strong aesthetic sensibility.

    The time is right for this discussion. Your advice is sound. Great Piece. Thanks – db

  2. Jason, Thanks for giving some context & meaning to web typography. It’s a grand improvement over the distraction of the new technologies (e.g. @font-face) or the legalities of font licenses.

    That being said, would anyone care to make a prediction on the future of typography? I’d love some insight from the alistapart.com crowd.

  3. Thanks for offering a fresh perspective on web _typography_ — as mcritz said, this article hardly mentions the technological or legal issues which largely seem to be dominating the web-typography discussion. As you’ve shown, there are much more interesting subjects than correct @font-face use and font licensing!

    That being said, I can’t help but bemoan the fact that many typefaces I would _love_ to use on the web are not yet licensed for such use. Personally, this is one of the issues preventing me from getting truly excited about font-embedding.

  4. Thanks everyone for the kind words! These are definitely the kinds of things we should start talking about sooner rather than later.

    @Kyle Fox:

    bq. That being said, I can’t help but bemoan the fact that many typefaces I would love to use on the web are not yet licensed for such use. Personally, this is one of the issues preventing me from getting truly excited about font-embedding.

    All in due time. A tremendous amount of ground has already been covered in a very small amount of time with getting viable solutions out there for using fonts on web pages. Now that some of these are in place, and the foundries are getting a bit more comfortable with the prospects, the fonts will follow. I doubt that most foundries won’t be offering up their fonts in some way by the this time next year.

  5. Great article Jason. This is still something I struggle with (or at least constantly worry about) when choosing faces.

    I’ve always found it tricky to find background info on the typefaces I want to use. Can you suggest any resources for finding history or other info? (besides “Typedia”:http://typedia.com of course ;).

  6. @Jason Santa Maria:

    Good point. I should clarify: lack of available typefaces is why I’m currently not _using_ font-embedding extensively just yet. It’s clear that foundries are warming to the idea of web-friendly licences for commercial fonts (ex: Axel), and once more fonts become available for web I’ll definitely be making more use of font-embedding.

  7. @louderthan10:

    bq. I’ve always found it tricky to find background info on the typefaces I want to use. Can you suggest any resources for finding history or other info? (besides Typedia of course ;).

    There are lots of “great”:http://www.itcfonts.com/Ulc/OtherArticles/EssentialBooks.htm “books”:http://www.typophile.com/books out there, though you can find at least a little bit of good info (sometimes quite a bit) by plunking a typeface name into Google.

  8. This is the best thing I have read on this since “Communicating – or just making pretty shapes” by Colin Wheldon – and the best by far on this subject as it relates to the internet. Thank you!

  9. @louderthan10:

    In addition to “Typedia”:http://typedia.com (a growing and valuable reference), I would recommend the forums and wiki at “Typophile”:http://typophile.com/ — folks there know their stuff. And, while discussion is occasionally heated between Typophiles who know one another well, everyone has been very nice to me — and very willing to share expertise.

    Web designers would do well to join in conversation with type experts.

  10. One thing that I learned in design school (which you reiterated) is that designers need to make the contrast between faces strong enough that it looks intentional. Too often you see two fonts that are close to each other, but not the same.

    If you need a slight variation on a font, simply be more creative within its boundaries. Change the color, weight, size, or letter-spacing.

  11. An entire issue on typography… fantastic!

    I particularly appreciate the info on pairing of typefaces.

    To be a pain, you are mixing metaphors: “another notch in the designer’s belt”. A notch on the handle or a tool on the belt. A notch on the belt and your pants fall down.

  12. Jason, fantastic article! I am a UX designer and have been researching the usability of fonts for the web. To help users read faster online I have found that choosing 14pt font over a smaller point font has tremendously helped. Arial, Verdana and Georgia all seem to be easy for users to read but I think it really depends on the content and the site context.

    For a web application using Georgia seems to be the wrong choice but for a blog it seems to work well and is engaging. Arial seems to be the least engaging for long paragraphs or blog entries. However it is the best when it comes to web applications because it is fast to read.

    I know that as designers we try to create websites that are “cool” and “trendy” by selecting smaller fonts but to be user friendly we need to make fonts larger and more readable.

    Could A List Apart benefit from a larger font? 🙂

  13. The problem with a lot of the assumptions you make is that they can only be considered anecdotal at best. There are certainly general baselines for readability, but we can’t say one typeface or size is always going to be better than another, or for a specific purpose, because reading is a highly personal and subjective action. What’s perfectly readable to someone could make another person stumble and falter.

  14. One of the most interesting articles I’ve read in a while, really insightful, so thank you for taking the time to write it!

    I can’t help but panic a little bit when it comes to web typography. Not because I’m intimidated by using it, but because there will be a lot of amateur use out there, tainting the use of @font-face: for the rest of us, making it take even longer or IE to support the code – bad times.

  15. Typography for the Web has come a long way since Tim Berners-Lee flipped the switch in 1991. Back in the days of IE 1.0, good web typography was something of an oxymoron. Today things are different. Not only do we have browsers that support images (gasp!), but we have the opportunity to make our web pages come to life through great typography.

  16. Logos, since they often contain a bit of large text can influence the designer’s choice of pairings on a page.

    Anyone who uses images to make headings or banners has to put serious thought into font pairing decisions. These tips are useful now.

    Thanks Jason for an excellent article.

  17. I’ve had clients who request some pretty crazy things. I see businesses all the time who either do there own marketing or hire some inexperienced designers that have no method to typography. There are even design firms that will use three, even 4, different fonts in their marketing pieces. Everything starts to look scattered, cluttered, and tacky.

    In web design it’s hard to decide on fonts because of browser compatibility. There are only limited typefaces that work well in all browsers. If a font is too uncommon then it can be used as an image but this then takes away from search optimization.

    This article is great in expressing the true meaning behind typography and would be good for clients to read and understand why there are limitations and guidelines to selecting fonts in their web design and marketing.

  18. bq. Does using sifr with typography make it not be seo friendly anyone?

    Nope, sIFR just replaces normal text on the page, which is still perfectly readable to search engines.

  19. You are spot on with this article. It’s something I’ve been thinking about more and more over the last few months.

    bq. There are many books and articles on typography, but considerably few explore typeface selection and pairing.

    You say there are ‘considerably few’ – but which are those few? I’d be interested to know. I have a few books on type but none of them seem to go into this subject with much (or any) depth.

    Perhaps there is a gap in the web for an online directory or cookbook of successful type pairings. I realise that the choice depends on the design context, but it still might be of some use.

  20. H’mmmm. I’m not entirely convinced that this is a good idea, y’know. Often the only way to make people follow best practice is to point out technical limitations in their ideas – for example, “You can’t use sIFR for all your text because it will take 20 minutes to load the page”.

    Once Dreamweaver and other visual tools take on @font-face we’re doomed, because every idiot who thinks owning a copy of Dreamweaver makes them a designer will start littering the web with badly-set type.

  21. Just wanted to make a quick comment about web fonts. Has anyone tried Extensis WebINK? It seems pretty cool and inexpensive solution for fancy web fonts.

Got something to say?

We have turned off comments, but you can see what folks had to say before we did so.

More from ALA