Screw designers. They have ruined so many things over the years. It's time to take back control.
Art being one that doesn't factor in greatly, but also has its own subjective definition.
There's design that's for helping the user access and process the information. I like this design, I'm all for it; pro-user.
There's design that's for aesthetic; motif; differentiation for the sake of differentiation. This probably overlaps with "art" and can, and often does, actively work against usage of the site for the sake of 'cool'. Works for people that rate aesthetic over content.
Then there's design for engagement and / or advertising revenue (and I'll include "data slurping" as advertising revenue). In relation to the topic, its likely one of the other design choices is leading to secondary data slurping that the website designer may not be aware of.
With good balance, we should be able to create a world that is both aesthetic and functional.
This means when it comes to software design, function always trumps form. A tool should never be designed with form over function in mind, it must always be function over form. Any form (design) that impedes the function must be culled with extreme prejudice.
When it comes to remote fonts, they slow down page download and consequently load time, they violate privacy rules and laws, they impede accessibility when fallbacks fail or do not exist (eg: Webdings, aka "icon" fonts), and objectively they only serve as a form of luxury for the website with no regard for end-users.
Most of us also know from experience that software designers by and large prioritize form over function, oftentimes with complete disregard for the function thereof.
So I second grandparent post's opinion: Screw designers. Removing them from the development process will bring about more net benefits than any benefits they might be bringing to the table.
Show example please.
> they violate privacy rules and laws,
Show more example please. Let's not forget when you access a webpage, the server already know what IP address you are connecting form. If the web font is loaded from the same host, the owner of the page does not violate any privacy rules than servicing you the page.
> they impede accessibility when fallbacks fail or do not exist
This is only when it failed.
> Most of us also know from experience that software designers by and large prioritize form over function, oftentimes with complete disregard for the function thereof.
You may have experienced designers who are bad at their job, but it does not mean a good design, including using or not using web font, help deliver the function better.
> So I second grandparent post's opinion: Screw designers. Removing them from the development process will bring about more net benefits than any benefits they might be bringing to the table.
I welcome your view, despite how myopic it is, and I hope you live by your value, which means code using vim/emac, not using any GUI tools, and browse the internet using lynx the text internet browser.
It's an additional resource that needs to be requested, downloaded, and processed by the browser. While the processing will happen either remote or local, local system fonts don't need to be requested and downloaded which saves bandwidth and time (aka faster page load times).
>Show more example please. Let's not forget when you access a webpage, the server already know what IP address you are connecting form.
EU rulings concerning GDPR and remote fonts.
>If the web font is loaded from the same host, the owner of the page does not violate any privacy rules than servicing you the page.
And in fact, this is suggested by the EU as a way to abide by GDPR while using remote fonts. The vast majority of remote font use cases are not served directly by the website, though. It's all a sad state of affairs.
>You may have experienced designers who are bad at their job, but it does not mean a good design, including using or not using web font, help deliver the function better.
Sure.
Thing is, in recent times I've experienced far too many terrible designs and I can't recall even one example of a good design.
User needs and desires aren't being considered by designers, so fuck it, I'm past the point of caring about throwing babies out with the bathwater. Throw them out, nothing of value will be lost.
>I welcome your view, despite how myopic it is, and I hope you live by your value, which means code using vim/emac, not using any GUI tools, and browse the internet using lynx the text internet browser.
The only thing myopic is your attitude. Good designs can exist, but when it comes to modern software design they've all turned horrible. The very fact you are trying to override user complaints with designer desires is indicative that you too consider form over function, which for a tool is nonsense.
I appreciate that you're a designer and an artist and you want to flaunt and exhibit your vision for all to see, and that's fine. Meanwhile, we've got shit to do and we need/want computers to enable us so we can get shit done, and your visions are getting in the way. So please save your passion for the art museum, tools are not avenues for artistic expressions.
Sure, bad designs that inhibit functionality are bad. But good design that enhances it are better than no design, so removing good designers from a pipeline is a bad thing.
In my opinion, products driven entirely by developers with no design sense are just as bad as those driven by designers with no development sense. The solution involves good teamwork between both parties.