Text replacement is the process of replacing standard fonts with more stylised, stylish ones, allowing web fonts to be as elaborate and original as those seen in print. Without some form of text replacement, all websites become limited to the fonts that are already installed on the majority of computers, namely Arial, Georgia, Verdana or Times New Roman, making for a bland and generic web space.
Pre text replacement - Post text replacement
Bespoke fonts are a constant constituent of the modern website, and we at outside the box haven’t built a site in the last 6 months that hasn’t used text replacement to some degree. There are three main options for the process: sIFR, Cufón, and Font Deck, but unfortunately, all have their respective downsides making the decision of which to use far from simple. Instead you have to weigh the positives against the negatives based on the context in which you require a text replacement program. So let’s look at the pros and cons of each:
sIFR
Uses an embedded font within an SWF file and replaces the text with a Flash file using JavaScript.
The Pros
- SEO friendly because the html doesn’t get altered
- Good anti-aliasing
- Allows for selected text
- Reliable and common
The Cons
- Relies on JavaScript to run which can be a problem if users don’t have JavaScript enabled
- Slow initial load time as the user's computer has to load Flash and render the fonts
- Requires developers to have Flash to create the Flash file
Cufón
Uses a JavaScript file generated by the Cufón website to replace text.
The Pros
- Because JavaScript is faster than Flash, Cufón gets the jump on sIFR with load times
- Cufon’s website makes for an easy and pain-free Font creation process
The Cons
- Cufón's font copyright isn’t very secure so it’s fairly easy for someone to steal your fonts
- Copy can only be selected through a less than user-friendly process
- Like sIFR, it relies on JavaScript to replace text
- Not SEO friendly due to the replacement of html by JavaScript
Font Deck
Uses CSS from the Font Deck website to replace the font.
The Pros
- Very fast because it’s pure CSS, so there's no JavaScript dependency
- Easy to implement as it only requires you to add the font name to the font-family, CSS style
The Cons
- Not fully anti-aliased which makes for some less than attractive fonts, which could defeat the object of text replacement
- Relies on a connection to the Font Deck site, so if the website goes down, so does your font replacement
- It's an expensive option
So which comes out best? Well, until a definitive text replacer is developed there isn't a single standout process so we have to choose which of the options’ suite of cons impacts less on the project. For instance, using Cufón for a site that requires a lot of font replacement, is a good choice, as the user won’t be put off by slow loading times, but if you want an SEO friendly site then sIFR is probably the way to go. This may all change though, as Google has appeared on the scene with a beta for Google Font Directory and API which offers an easy, free and functional means of replacing text. It is, however, still in beta format, so the choice of fonts is fairly limited and reliability could be an issue, but when the full version is released, it could be a real competitor.
