<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Barry Hand &#187; flash fonts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.barryhand.ie/blog/tag/flash-fonts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.barryhand.ie</link>
	<description>Analysing Marketing, Social Media &#38; Online Business</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 07:11:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>When NOT to use sIFR font emedding</title>
		<link>http://www.barryhand.ie/blog/when-not-to-use-sifr-font-emedding/</link>
		<comments>http://www.barryhand.ie/blog/when-not-to-use-sifr-font-emedding/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:04:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Barry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Web Design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flash fonts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[font replacement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sifr]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barryhand.ie/when-not-to-use-sifr-font-emedding/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Web.com have updated their website today, implementing the much debated sIFR technique to embed their funky font within the design. While I think sIFR has a place for web design, I think this is a poor implementation by web.com, which is backed up difference in appearance in my 3 main browsers (on Mac OSX) Opera [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.web.com"  target="_blank">Web.com</a> have updated their website today, implementing the much debated <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Inman_Flash_Replacement"  target="_blank">sIFR</a> technique to embed their funky font within the design.</p>
<p>While I think sIFR  <a target="_blank" href="http://www.theitarticles.com/how-and-when-to-use-sifr/205/" >has a place for web design</a>, I think this is a poor implementation by web.com, which is backed up difference in appearance in my 3 main browsers (on Mac OSX)</p>
<p><strong>Opera 9 </strong></p>
<p><img src="http://beta.barryhand.ie/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/opera.jpg" alt="Opera" /></p>
<p><strong>Firefox 2</strong></p>
<p><img src="http://beta.barryhand.ie/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/firefox.jpg" alt="Firefox" /></p>
<p><strong>Safari 3</strong></p>
<p><img src="http://beta.barryhand.ie/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/safari.jpg" alt="Safari" /></p>
<p>Only Safar3 managed to correctly render the jaggy font which is used throughout the website, Firefox2 &amp; Opera9 both render it as a green/orange blocky mess. This seriously affects not only the design of the site but also the credibility, and also has <a href="http://www.redcardinal.ie/search-engine-optimisation/08-08-2007/flash-text-replacement-seo/"  title="SEO sIFR" target="_blank">SEO implications</a> (although having a domain name like as web.com can&#8217;t be too much of a bad thing)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barryhand.ie/blog/when-not-to-use-sifr-font-emedding/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
