The documentation states:
Use fonts that are installed on all target operating systems. If a font is not available to a web
browser accessing a FileMaker WebDirect solution, the web browser substitutes its default font
for the unavailable font.
So as long as it's a generally universal installed font it should be compatible.
What I think this ALSO shows is that no, FM does not embed your custom font in your WD page. Or at least that's what I expect.
Given that fontography is something I think that could really mess with positioning of layout objects if a substitution is made (user does not have specified font), it might be wise to stick with the default fonts.
What would be considered "Default Fonts" in this day and age?
This was the most decent looking list I found at a quick glance:
Unfortunately, back in my web developer days fontography was constantly lamented over. The normal practice was to design the page so it could fail gracefully to any default system font. As noted that seems to not be an option in WD. Well, it is an option, but you have to have access to testing machines to view what your page would look like with substitute fonts.
CSS3 brought us the handy @font-face block which allows a src attribute to specify any svg, .otf, .eot,.woff, etc.. font file to be embedded in CSS so you could use a font even if it was not on a user's system.
Perhaps if we ever get our hands into the raw CSS of WD we can really nail the interface fonts, but for now, fonts in FM are kind of at the bottom of my list.
There's also nothing to stop you from adding font-installation as part of your deployment of the database to all the users. I also wonder if you could scrape a user's font folder to check and see if it exists, then prompt them to install it from a container field location? thinking out loud
I'm with you. Unfortunately, our application is pretty senstive to font variations. So I can't just ignore it. So far it has not been a big issue, as we've kept the fonts very basic. But I need to squeeze a bit more in a few places and was curious if using a Condensed font of some type was a problem.
The idea with WebDirect is not to have a "deployment" in any significant way. Mostly I'm worried about outside users who will be running Windows. So I guess I'll have to stick with fonts that are native to XP and Windows 7. We will have to provide remediation for anyone getting odd results.
1 of 1 people found this helpful
"Arial Narrow" is not 100% universal, but according to cssfontstack.com, it's 88.39% on Windows & 94.77% on Mac (I don't know where/when they get their stats). When not installed by the OS, it's generally installed by Windows Office.
Via googling, there are a number of sites that consider Arial Narrow to be "web safe" -- although based on the above percentages, that'll depend on your definition of safe -- and your knowledge of the intended audience.
I don't have FMS13 running right now (I could test later), but if the CSS generated by WD for "Arial Narrow" on a layout is smart enough to include default sans-serif fonts (e.g. font-family: "Arial Narrow", Arial, sans-serif; ), then the few users that don't have Arial Narrow would at least see Arial. If WD outputs only "Arial Narrow" in the CSS, then that user might well see the standard browser default, which is usually Times New Roman (Win) or Times (Mac). (this is based on the doc's statement "the web browser substitutes its default font for the unavailable font.")
FYI: You can use http://browserstack.com to see how a site looks in other browsers & OSes.
: database design
: web development