<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:57 AM, Dave Crossland <<a href="mailto:dave@lab6.com" target="_self">dave@lab6.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On 25 December 2012 20:26, Dave Crossland <<a href="mailto:dave@lab6.com">dave@lab6.com</a>> wrote: > On 25 December 2012 16:09, Alexandre Prokoudine > <<a href="mailto:alexandre.prokoudine@gmail.com">alexandre.prokoudine@gmail.com</a>> wrote: >> >>> I'd start with a better question: what place in the modern ecosystem >>> should OFLB be aiming at? >>> >>> When we started it, there was no TypeKit, no GFS, no half a dozen >>> other web fonts foundries. >>> >>> What makes OFLB special today, apart from free-as-in-speech typefaces? >> >> I also think Alexandre's question is a very important one that >> needs an answer before we proceed in any direction. The one >> advantage OFLB has is that typeface authors become the >> curators of their own fonts, which we don't see so much on, >> say, Fontsquirrel, Kernest, or Google. > > I think Daniel is correct. > > What sets OFLB apart from FontSquirrel and GWF is that Ethan and I are > gatekeepers for those services, deciding what is uploaded to each, > whereas OFLB is 'self service.' > > I think it would make sense to add a 'link' object that points to > projects that are hosted and developed elsewhere (DejaVu, Libertine, > etc etc) so that OFLB really IS a 'library' - a complete index of all > libre fonts on the web that presents the fonts in a way that is > pleasant to browse. > </div></div></blockquote><div> I think there's a definite need for a site that indexes all (that is, as close to "all" as humanly possible) of the open fonts out there; it definitely makes sense for OFLB to be that service. After all, the foundries and webfont services like GWF are not going to be places that point to fonts-that-live-elsewhere. That just doesn't make sense for them. Like a library, being a resource that helps users find a font is invaluable, whether the font is hosted at the site (the "local collection") or somewhere else (interlibrary loan would be the analogue, but that's kind of stretching the library metaphor to its limit). That means having good and searchable metadata & samples (at least sample images) for all of the indexed fonts hosted elsewhere, but on the other hand it does not necessarily mean that OFLB needs to bother with *serving* those fonts over HTTP. I mean, if GWF can deliver @font-face for a particular font, then (a) OFLB doesn't gain anything by duplicating that function for the same font -- and (b) it might even hurt the designer, if Google were to ever implement any payment mechanisms. On the other hand, there is clearly a need to be filled by serving up fonts that are *not* hosted anywhere else. To me, the question here is how much service makes sense to provide: just @font-face? also using OBS to build installable packages? VCS? If you look at OFLB from the graphic/web designer's POV, then providing @font-face makes sense; we could do that for fonts that live only at OFLB, and simply point to the correct HTML snippet for the fonts available at GWF or wherever else. The other things, like packaging or version control, are not as clear cut. There are plenty of code hosting options for designers (from GitHub on up); OFLB could provide pointers to them, which would help designers, but we probably couldn't run a better one ourselves anyway. Packaging I'm on the fence about -- I know there are a lot of independent font projects that would benefit a lot by having packages available for Linux distros, but it is kind of a different animal. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"> > I think the features of <a href="http://www.openhatch.org" target="_self">www.openhatch.org</a> are also good, in that they > help people to become involved. OFLB can help type designers to set > out a project's roadmap and invite people to participate on particular > tasks. </div></div>Continuing to noodle on this, I suppose we (I) should reach out to the users and ask them what they want out of OFLB. </blockquote></div> Agree. I think the "library/resource/index first" approach I described is probably most useful to graphic designers & pub designers; they'd be the ones to ask for feature input or feedback. I don't think I actually know any, though.... Nate -- nathan.p.willis <a href="mailto:nwillis@glyphography.com">nwillis@glyphography.com</a> aim/ym/gtalk:n8willis <a href="http://identi.ca/n8">identi.ca/n8</a>