sIFR Vs WEFT: which is more Google friendly?
I want to use my custom font on a website. Could you please recommend me best possible SEO friendly method for embedding my font.<a href="http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/sifr/">sIFR</a> or <a href="http://www.spoono.com/html/tutorials/tutorial.php?id=19">WEFT</a> or anyother technigue you know?
Clarification added 6 months ago:
Thanks for replying guys. I have seen cufon. But it has some big <a href="http://wiki.github.com/sorccu/cufon/known-bugs-and-issues">issues</a> to be fixed yet(e.g. text alignment, line-hieght)
I have found another technique called <a href="http://facelift.mawhorter.net/">FLIR</a> what do you think about this? OR simple CSS text replacement also work for SEO?
Answers (4)
Chad A
Web Developer
Best Answers in: Web Development (7), Education and Schools (1), Enterprise Software (1), Wireless (1)
sIFR is the correct choice. It's been around longer for one.
That said it should be avoided in use, it doesn't always work. If you need a custom font displayed on the web use a graphic as text and add the appropriate alternate text. That keeps Google, and the other search engines happy.
Deborah E
Owner, Lireo Designs, Web Designer, focused on usability and accessibility
You may want to take a look at Cufón, an alternative to sIFR. Cameron Moll wrote an article about implementing Cufón and its drawbacks compared to sIFR. Cufón relies on JavaScript, and is quick to set up.
Links:
Catherine A
Owner & Graphic Design Professional
Best Answers in: Regulation and Compliance (1), Quality Management and Standards (1), Green Business (1), Using LinkedIn (1)
I'd go with Cufon. It's easy to implement and the HTML copy is still on your page for webbots to see.
Check out a template I'm working on and view w/CSS off. All info still there.
Links:
I'd definitely recommend Cufón over sIFR or WEFT. We've had a lot of success with it recently. It's much easier to implement, has no dependency on Flash, and can be used without negatively effecting your semantic markup.
