I was going to wait to post this until I've finished the CLI and documentation, but this seems like a relevant time to plug my web font subsetting/self-hosting tool: https://glypht.valadaptive.dev/
It lets you pick from the Google Fonts catalog, and comes with various options for further reducing the fonts' sizes if you're as obsessed with webpage size as I am.
Completely different use case, where it assumes you have the font downloaded already, and every new regen of your static site you regenerate the font for what’s required to render it.
WCSTombs 6 hours ago [-]
This looks really cool! When I was optimizing my SSG website, the big win was self-hosting the fonts. The fonts are still the biggest part of the payload on some of the pages, though, so I'm wondering how small I can make them. I think I'll have to give this tool a shot!
ksymph 14 hours ago [-]
This is fantastic! I was recently trying to prepare a number of fonts for web use and there was a lot of friction -- each part of the process needed a different tool, each with its own weird quirks. Glypht looks to have everything in one place without any extraneous stuff or legacy cruft. I didn't even know it was possible to make a subset of weights for variable fonts. I'll be making thorough use of this, thank you!
Theodores 12 hours ago [-]
Fair play, that is awesome, and just what I wanted.
I do have a minor constructive criticism, as someone that does not use Apple, I found the '+' to actually select a Google Font to be far from intuitive. I was looking for a big button in the bottom right with 'Select' (or some other label).
Other than that, bookmarked, kettle on and fired up to get my fonts optimised. Thank you.
simlevesque 10 hours ago [-]
I was about to make that command. it needs to be a primary button with text.
xp84 10 hours ago [-]
There seems to be a great deal of paranoia about what data is collected by Google, so I checked[1]:
> What does using the Google Fonts Web API mean for the privacy of my users?
> The Google Fonts API is designed to limit the collection, storage, and use of end-user data. The use of the Google Fonts Web API is unauthenticated and the Google Fonts API does not set or log cookies. Requests to the Google Fonts Web API are made to resource-specific domains, such as fonts.googleapis.com or fonts.gstatic.com. Font requests are separate from and don't contain any credentials sent to google.com while using other Google services that are authenticated, such as Gmail.
> When I embed Google Fonts in my website via the Google Fonts Web API, what data does Google receive from my website visitors?
> When end users visit a website that embeds Google Fonts, their browsers send HTTP requests to the Google Fonts Web API. [ snipped details of how HTTP works and headers like referrer ]
> For clarity, Google does not use any information collected by Google Fonts to create profiles of end users or for targeted advertising.
(There's also an answer to what they do that is different than statically hosting: [2])
I'm guessing you read that and think, see they are awesome and privacy preserving! I read that and think much differently, but I'm obviously a pessimist here.
I really love this line:
> For clarity, Google does not use any information collected by Google Fonts to create profiles of end users or for targeted advertising.
Except they already have a profile of you, I promise. For instance, they explicitly don't say they don't use information from google fonts requests to update their existing profiles of you.
dujeidj 6 hours ago [-]
That’s accurate. Google has a massive amount of user-specific data, but it’s not exposed to advertisers in a way that exposes PII or is traceable back to specific users.
Like you said- it doesn’t mean that Google itself can’t use that data.
viraptor 1 hours ago [-]
All of this is in the context of "as currently understood". Things can change. The information quoted could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time). Why risk it at all if you can copy the font and host it yourself trivially?
Velocifyer 7 hours ago [-]
Even if google was a magic privacy paradice, it would still be slower to make a new http connection. 103 early hints might slightly improve it.
1vuio0pswjnm7 3 hours ago [-]
Why would anyone care about someone that wants to self-host a font
WebBurnout 14 hours ago [-]
FontSource releases all of google fonts and more as NPM packages: https://fontsource.org
Imustaskforhelp 13 hours ago [-]
this is really fascinating considering that they package it as a npm package which is then used by jsdelivr which is essentially a free really low latency sponsored/(essentially operated?) by cloudflare and fastly etc.
I just checked and jsdelivr has had like 300 billion requests past month and over 16,813 TB
Really fascinating stuff. I will try to use this from now on! (earlier I was thinking of using something like coollabs.io but I checked its code and I see that the fonts are served through something like bunnycdn from coollabs side which is cool but still)
Honestly, what other things would be better off packaged as npm packages as I never thought that packaging fonts as npm package should make so much sense but here we are!
With a zero-tracking and no-logging policy, Bunny Fonts helps you stay fully GDPR compliant and puts your user's personal data into their own hands. Additionally, you can enjoy lightning-fast load times thanks to bunny.net's global CDN network to help improve SEO and deliver a better user experience.
SahAssar 6 hours ago [-]
Do you work for bunnyCDN? This sounds more like a sales pitch than a honest recommendation.
galaxy_gas 6 hours ago [-]
Not associated and not a customer. It was a copy paste from the page.
And once you use these fonts, make sure to not use blue as link color with a dark background, so that your readers can actually read your content too ;)
If you do this, you make the page slower to load for people blocking external fonts.
Not doing it is also nicer for people with slow/unreliable network access, where they can block fonts, or even if they don't block them, can access your page more quickly and have a render without the custom font.
olivia-banks 14 hours ago [-]
Couldn't this increase FOUC? At least before you could load in your style-sheet before the font, but if you embed the font inside you get no styling at all until it can fetch all of the data, correct
erikpukinskis 14 hours ago [-]
Not if the styles + fonts are all in the <head>?
booi 13 hours ago [-]
wouldn't the problem be the fonts are basically in every single request and uncacheable then?
kevincox 10 hours ago [-]
Your CSS should be cacheable shouldn't it?
kellengreen 13 hours ago [-]
^ this
Velocifyer 13 hours ago [-]
That increases FONC (flash of no content)
tmdetect 14 hours ago [-]
I used to use Google fonts a fair amount, but why do I need to download a font when my browser/os already have a reasonable amount of good ones? Engineer aesthetic/logic maybe?
I had to go digging for it again and I've now bookmarked it, but this website/repo has some nice examples: https://modernfontstacks.com/
Velocifyer 14 hours ago [-]
Some of my readers don't have Noto Sans (the best font) and Fira Code (the best font for coding) installed.
tracker1 13 hours ago [-]
I really like Noto Sans for readability.
dylan604 13 hours ago [-]
And here is the crux of the problem. What you think is the best font is not the best font to other people. So people use the font they think is the best, so yet another font. It feels like a twist on the xkcd about creating a new standard
youngtaff 10 hours ago [-]
Code examples that is onts with ligatures for === => etc really get in the way of comprehension for people who aren’t familiar with those ligatures
chuckadams 12 hours ago [-]
It would be a terrible day for humanity if we were all so homogeneous that one aesthetic satisfied everyone.
saghm 4 hours ago [-]
That's exactly why I should be the one picking my fonts, not whoever's site I'm viewing. My taste might be subjectively terrible, but no one else uses my devices, so why should someone else be sending me fonts when I just want to use whatever terrible font I like?
xp84 10 hours ago [-]
It's been a pretty terrible day for the Web since webfonts were born then, since every site tries to force a single font to everyone for branding reasons alone. Case in point, Atlassian's hideous new font (which I've personally blocked using uBlock Origin, lol)
I do really wish that instead of moving in that direction, that customization was the norm, with sites specifying "serif" and "sans-serif" and users were assumed to be setting those settings to what they prefer. Similar to how dark mode is now respected on at least the plurality of "important" sites.
hluska 13 hours ago [-]
Oddly, I did some work around this recently. I’m a terrible designer but I’m less terrible now because I did a self guided course. A 120 day course to go from a terrible designer to just a really really bad designer isn’t very marketable.
With built in fonts, if you want to support a wide range of machines, you have seven reliable fonts, one monospace and one cursive font to choose from. Georgia is a good looking serif font and I use it too much now, but the sans serif pairings aren’t great.
With CSS, you can make arial work as a heading font with a Georgia body for example, but that takes time and creates a testing burden. It only takes seconds to host a font that looks great out of the box and imposes a smaller testing burden. So for me the answer is a lack of talent that I’ve mitigated through transferring fonts on requests. I don’t think that’s a good thing, but my designs are no longer covered by a Geneva convention so that makes me feel better. :)
rs186 15 hours ago [-]
I tried to do something similar myself once but quickly gave up. I decided to just slap that line Google gave me in the web page.
I get why it is "better" -- CDN, optimized for browser blah blah. But I really wanted to host it myself, because 1) it's my website 2) I don't want every visitor to send a piece of information about themselves to Google just to get some fonts.
But apparently Google is not motivated to offer such a solution, at all.
OskarS 15 hours ago [-]
Google Fonts lets you just download the font, right? So what's the problem with self-hosting them? They're not encrypted or anything. Like, I'm not sure what else you would want Google to do.
dawnerd 15 hours ago [-]
It’s like we’ve taken a step back and people forgot how the web used to be built. I’ve also seen someone ask how you use JavaScript if you don’t have a preprocessor like webpack.
rs186 14 hours ago [-]
It's not a single file with a simple line of CSS like in the old days. It's a bunch of files, so you need to make sure you do have all the files and understand how exactly these come together.
OskarS 13 hours ago [-]
I'm a very dedicated anti-Google person who's trying to move everything I can off of any kind of Google service, so I very much understand the desire to self-host. But I find it hard to find fault with Google here. "If you don't want to worry about hosting, here's a one-liner you can add to CSS that hosts it off our servers. If you want to do something else, here are the raw font files as a single click download, do whatever you like!". That seems perfectly reasonable to me, and it's a great service to improve typography on the web.
Velocifyer 12 hours ago [-]
Google fonts download button gives you a TTF file and not a WOFF2 file so you have to read the CSS to get the WOFF2 file.
Velocifyer 14 hours ago [-]
Google fonts download button gives you a TTF file and not a WOFF2 file so you have to read the CSS to get the WOFF2 file.
Any idea if the woff2 files served by Google are the same? Or that they maybe are more optimized for web?
darrenf 13 hours ago [-]
I’m afraid I don’t know for sure, I only know that the woff2 file I generated with the CLI worked fine in all the browsers I needed it to. Other posters have said that Google may do some user-agent sniffing or other fingerprinting to maybe serve an even more reliable version, but I can’t comment on that.
trnglina 15 hours ago [-]
What made you give up? As the article describes, self hosting fonts is as easy as making the static font files available and then adding a few lines of CSS. What solution would you want Google to offer?
rs186 14 hours ago [-]
I needed to figure out exactly which files need to be there, and I needed to understand what's happening in that CSS file. I vaguely remember seeing different content for the CSS file in different browsers.
At that time it would take me more than a few minutes (which was what I had), and seemed a rabbit hole. I decided not to pursue that.
rs186 11 hours ago [-]
LOL downvoted. The sentence "self hosting fonts is as easy as making the static font files available and then adding a few lines of CSS" is a complete lie and you could tell they have never gone through the process themselves and were just making things up.
If you don't believe me, you are welcome to try it out yourself FROM SCRATCH without any references whatsoever, and see how long it takes you to come up a solution that works on all 5 or 6 platforms, desktop or mobile.
trnglina 9 hours ago [-]
Please educate me if I'm missing something!
From memory, what I would do is simply download the original ttfs or otfs, run them through woff2 (https://github.com/google/woff2), and then write the @font-face declarations for each weight/style variation. Variable fonts make this even easier, since you can get by with just the one declaration.
One could further optimise them for size with fonttools, to do stuff like subsetting by unicode ranges (https://github.com/fonttools/fonttools), but that's quite optional. Unless your font includes CJK, it's probably not that big to begin with.
alwillis 6 hours ago [-]
> The sentence "self hosting fonts is as easy as making the static font files available and then adding a few lines of CSS" is a complete lie and you could tell they have never gone through the process themselves and were just making things up.
It's not a lie—I've been doing exactly that as long as Google fonts has been a thing.
I think people are confusing what was required in the back in the day when browsers were buggy and supported different font formats--15+ years ago.
The technique was called the "bullet proof" @font-face syntax because it "solved" getting web fonts to work across operating systems and devices in the 2010's [1]:
If you weren't doing web development back then, you don't understand what a revelation this syntax was for supporting cross-browser web fonts. There were even websites that would generate the syntax for you. BTW, woff2 didn't exist then.
It seems that some developers, like the Japanese soldiers who didn't stop fighting WWII until the 1970's because they didn't know the war ended in 1945 [2], still believe dealing with fonts in 2025 is like it was 15 years ago.
It's never been easier to self-host fonts… why make an additional HTTPS request if you don't have to?
There are plenty of utilities to compress TrueType or OpenType fonts to WOFF2.
Since caches are no longer shared between pages, it actually is often better to self host your fonts than rely on public CDN’s. Makes it even weirder that Google does not offer a simple solution to self host fonts.
See my top-level comment pointing to where Google is specifically refuting that. So you're welcome to believe they do, but it'd have to be a conspiracy that nobody at GOOG has ever whistleblown.
saghm 3 hours ago [-]
Your top-level comment does not refute that. As one of the replies to it already states, saying that aren't going to use to info to "create" a targeted profile doesn't really mean a whole lot when they already have so much data on most people already. Even for people that they don't already have a profile on, it's not obvious that they couldn't just add it in to an existing profile in the future if the person made a Google account or something.
It's also not nearly as unbelievable as you seem to think it sounds that it could be happening without anyone blowing the whistle. What would you expect to happen if they did? Does "Google tracks lied about tracking users through front downloads" sound like front page news, or something that would stay on people's radar for more than a day or two even if it was? It's hard to imagine that there would be any sort of fine that would reach a level that mattered to Google, or that the recent antitrust case would have had a different outcome if only the font conspiracy had been discovered. Trying to blow the whistle on it just wouldn't be worth it.
Velocifyer 12 hours ago [-]
Then this guide will be very usefull for you
carlosjobim 9 hours ago [-]
> But apparently Google is not motivated to offer such a solution, at all.
Wait a moment, why should this be Google's job? They're not the lords of your HTML and CSS. In fact, they have no duty to help you with anything at all, and neither does anybody else except your mother.
saghm 3 hours ago [-]
It's not as much that they should do it that it's weird that they don't do it. They're already doing a ton of work to try to get people to download fonts from them, supposedly without an ulterior motive other than being helpful, and yet for some reason they seem kinda hesitant to let people actually, you know, actually download them. It's like if Netflix didn't make anyone sign in or charge any money, and went out of their way to get to get people to link to them, but then got shy when someone wanted to download a video to host on their site directly. Being surpsingly unmotivated to do something that ostensibly should be less effort in the long run kind of makes it seem like maybe there's something else going on here.
jrm4 14 hours ago [-]
Okay, so as something of an old-timer:
WAT
Like, as someone who teaches IT -- an article like this getting this high in hacker news is just very wild to me. Which is to say:
The answer that ought to be obvious to this crowd is "Download it and link to it in your HTML/CSS in your local html directory."
Now, I'm aware that at least part of the reason this isn't the extremely obvious answer has to do with some friction on the downloading as well as perhaps cdn stuff.
But still; wow. As far as we have gotten in some ways, we've clearly lost A LOT of simplicity that shouldn't be -- but apparently -- really difficult to recover.
chowells 9 hours ago [-]
Have you ever tried to self-host a font from Google fonts? I have. It's actually quite a lot of work. It doesn't just give you a blob of CSS that links to a font file. It dynamically populates the contents based on what Google thinks of your request. You can't just examine your browser network logs to get the content you need. You have to synthesize the contents of a lot of different requests to fully populate the CSS, and get a bunch of different font files. And it's not just combining things blindly, you have to work around all the weird splitting it does to attempt to optimize common cases.
Writing a tool to do all that work for you is the hacker spirit. Mocking the work is not.
jrm4 9 hours ago [-]
I mean, I appreciate a "Make Doom run on a pregnancy test" as much as the next guy, but what are you talking about?
At fonts.google.com:
Find font; click download (it's the SECOND blue button)
Unzip and upload to your website.
What am I missing here?
Velocifyer 9 hours ago [-]
That download is TTF format when it should be WOFF2 split by unicode chrarector sets. And it doesn't have the CSS for it to be a variable font
bigwheels 7 hours ago [-]
WOFF2 is an optimization, but TTF fonts generally work fine.
> an article like this getting this high in hacker news is just very wild to me
It might be because it's a "You should host web fonts from Google Fonts yourself" in disguise. The technical "How to" is almost not the important part here :-)
It may give some pause to web devs who hotlink to google here on HN without much thoughts and make them consider doing it differently next time.
I suspect many people upvoting it are doing it for this. Maybe upvotes here might actually mean "Please host Google Fonts yourself".
xp84 10 hours ago [-]
I thought HN automatically stripped "How To" from the titles, which would have made this one "Self-host a web font from GF"
jraph 9 hours ago [-]
It strips out "Why" for sure, I don't know about how to
I think you can revert by editing your submission afterwards.
freedomben 14 hours ago [-]
I had the same thought. Makes me think we're getting old and the old ways of the web just aren't known as widely anymore.
I've had to do this several times in the past because the customer firewall blocks google domains, and it never required a second thought. The only question I had was around the legality of doing so (which I checked on). Once I verified that, it was about 2 minutes of wget (or curl) the file down, stick in a static web server, and update the links in the HTML page and Bob's your Uncle
jrm4 14 hours ago [-]
I'm a lawyer so an example something I WOULD NEVER SAY IN EARNEST, but I perhaps would if I wasn't might be:
"And perhaps even the idea of having to think about the legality of such things is part of the problem, I can remember when we'd just DO IT."
:)
jraph 14 hours ago [-]
And it's legal because Google Fonts hosts open source fonts exclusively :-)
xp84 10 hours ago [-]
I would almost agree, but I wouldn't want to assert that confidently without an attorney since there could be some attribution obligation or something. After all, "open source" != "public domain"
jraph 9 hours ago [-]
Attribution is required by almost all licenses even permissive indeed.
I'm not sure that it matters that you or Google hosts it. Same as any free software actually.
Propelloni 13 hours ago [-]
I'm old,too. I remember when the default fonts of the web browser were good enough. Matter of fact, they still are, but today I, as a user, have to jump through some easy hoops to get the font of my choice ;)
symn 11 hours ago [-]
man i used <table> for layouts with Verdana 10px. i am very old
codeulike 13 hours ago [-]
They had something on the front page the other week about how SQL views can show you whats in your database
13 hours ago [-]
hluska 14 hours ago [-]
I’m old too, but have a different take on this type of content. Part of being old was the privilege of coming up within an industry when everything was documented and most things were searchable. IRC was the only walled garden and it was reasonably common for teams to turn their frequently asked questions into web content.
So things got to become common sense for us because it was easy to get overwhelmed in information on why it should be common sense. The web has changed dramatically - there is a lot of content in Discord servers and it’s rare for frequently asked Discord questions to turn into web content. Common sense isn’t as wide ranging, but that’s been replaced by extreme specialty knowledge.
I see this a lot in software companies when build tools crap out. Younger developers have much more specialized knowledge on the build tools and can outwork me when everything is on the happy path. Off the happy path, all the general bits and pieces we picked up through osmosis back in the day become very helpful.
I’m glad that articles like this are being promoted. This plumbing type knowledge will be useful many many times over the course of a career. Not everything has to be aimed at me to be good, you know?
jaredwiener 13 hours ago [-]
FYI, In addition to being able to download straight from fonts.google.com, Many (if not all?) of the fonts are also on Github, including TTF/OTF/WOFF2 files.
The method in the article just uses the Google Fonts CSS but with the paths modified
nick_ 14 hours ago [-]
But doesn't Google serve a different font depending on the User Agent string? IIRC, it serves fonts based on your OS and browser so that differences in rendering implementations are corrected for.
Koffiepoeder 10 hours ago [-]
Yes, the article is indeed a simplification. Google fonts also checks for font format (eg woff2, ttf, otf...) compatibility based on user agent and changes the files served depending on your browser.
rambambram 14 hours ago [-]
Everything old is new again. ;) Jokes aside, I think it's good to serve the fonts directly, there's no need to do a 'phone home' roundtrip to google only to present some fonts.
And while you're at it (and you use multiple fonts), you might as well use CSS's font-face to harmonize the different fonts a little. Fonts with the same size might look bigger or smaller to the eye, depending on thickness of the lines and other font styles.
gred 10 hours ago [-]
All fonts from Google Fonts are available under open source licenses. What is the point of padding out this 3-step guide with an extra 3 steps of license-checking fluff?
dktalks 14 hours ago [-]
What benefits are you getting from this? I mean have you built an entire CDN to cache the fonts so that your server does not have to download it every time a new page is loaded? I understand self-hosting for your own servers, but for a website this is overkill.
mlunar 14 hours ago [-]
Not the author, but last time I checked (3y ago), the fonts CDN was surprisingly slow, like hundreds of milliseconds of latency.
I'm not sure what you mean with the rest of the comment though, it's a very small change and it gets cached by the browser like other static assets, so I'm not sure what is the overkill here.
ameliaquining 14 hours ago [-]
Hotlinking Google Fonts leaks your visitors' IP addresses to Google. This bothers some people.
JimDabell 14 hours ago [-]
It’s more than just “bothers people”. Some jurisdictions consider this to be leaking PII without consent and will issue fines if you don’t self-host or ask permission. For example:
> Also, please note that Google LLC is certified under both the EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield frameworks and our certifications can be viewed on the Privacy Shield list.
It’s very important to be aware that the Privacy Shield was declared invalid by the European Court of Justice in 2020, so that note from April 17, 2018 is worthless.
freedomben 14 hours ago [-]
For me the biggest benefit is that my customer doesn't have to whitelist a google endpoint to use our website. Secondary benefit is being in control of downtime and/or updates (though the secondary benefit on it's own is nowhere near enough to justify self-hosting to me, but for some people it might be)
Velocifyer 14 hours ago [-]
I have Cloudflare and I have the TTL set to 10 years
carlosjobim 9 hours ago [-]
In cases where this matters, you are already using a CDN for your site, like Cloudflare. Advantage is better speed for page visitors.
gethly 15 hours ago [-]
It's like people are rediscovering CSS from 20 years ago.
efilife 4 hours ago [-]
I get exactly the same feeling. People from the comments here literally gave up trying to self host a font and hotlinked to google. It's as easy as downloading the file and writing a CSS one liner. What the hell is happening?
The view warrant canaries[0] link on the bottom of the page goes to a cloudflare 502 page. Bitrot is indistinguishable from subpoena, but neither is a good indicator.
It lets you pick from the Google Fonts catalog, and comes with various options for further reducing the fonts' sizes if you're as obsessed with webpage size as I am.
Completely different use case, where it assumes you have the font downloaded already, and every new regen of your static site you regenerate the font for what’s required to render it.
I do have a minor constructive criticism, as someone that does not use Apple, I found the '+' to actually select a Google Font to be far from intuitive. I was looking for a big button in the bottom right with 'Select' (or some other label).
Other than that, bookmarked, kettle on and fired up to get my fonts optimised. Thank you.
> What does using the Google Fonts Web API mean for the privacy of my users?
> The Google Fonts API is designed to limit the collection, storage, and use of end-user data. The use of the Google Fonts Web API is unauthenticated and the Google Fonts API does not set or log cookies. Requests to the Google Fonts Web API are made to resource-specific domains, such as fonts.googleapis.com or fonts.gstatic.com. Font requests are separate from and don't contain any credentials sent to google.com while using other Google services that are authenticated, such as Gmail.
> When I embed Google Fonts in my website via the Google Fonts Web API, what data does Google receive from my website visitors?
> When end users visit a website that embeds Google Fonts, their browsers send HTTP requests to the Google Fonts Web API. [ snipped details of how HTTP works and headers like referrer ]
> For clarity, Google does not use any information collected by Google Fonts to create profiles of end users or for targeted advertising.
(There's also an answer to what they do that is different than statically hosting: [2])
[1] https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq/privacy
[2] https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq/privacy#what_are_the...
I really love this line:
> For clarity, Google does not use any information collected by Google Fonts to create profiles of end users or for targeted advertising.
Except they already have a profile of you, I promise. For instance, they explicitly don't say they don't use information from google fonts requests to update their existing profiles of you.
Like you said- it doesn’t mean that Google itself can’t use that data.
I just checked and jsdelivr has had like 300 billion requests past month and over 16,813 TB
Really fascinating stuff. I will try to use this from now on! (earlier I was thinking of using something like coollabs.io but I checked its code and I see that the fonts are served through something like bunnycdn from coollabs side which is cool but still)
Honestly, what other things would be better off packaged as npm packages as I never thought that packaging fonts as npm package should make so much sense but here we are!
Bookmarked!!
With a zero-tracking and no-logging policy, Bunny Fonts helps you stay fully GDPR compliant and puts your user's personal data into their own hands. Additionally, you can enjoy lightning-fast load times thanks to bunny.net's global CDN network to help improve SEO and deliver a better user experience.
https://damieng.com/blog/2021/12/03/using-variable-webfonts-...
Not doing it is also nicer for people with slow/unreliable network access, where they can block fonts, or even if they don't block them, can access your page more quickly and have a render without the custom font.
I had to go digging for it again and I've now bookmarked it, but this website/repo has some nice examples: https://modernfontstacks.com/
I do really wish that instead of moving in that direction, that customization was the norm, with sites specifying "serif" and "sans-serif" and users were assumed to be setting those settings to what they prefer. Similar to how dark mode is now respected on at least the plurality of "important" sites.
With built in fonts, if you want to support a wide range of machines, you have seven reliable fonts, one monospace and one cursive font to choose from. Georgia is a good looking serif font and I use it too much now, but the sans serif pairings aren’t great.
With CSS, you can make arial work as a heading font with a Georgia body for example, but that takes time and creates a testing burden. It only takes seconds to host a font that looks great out of the box and imposes a smaller testing burden. So for me the answer is a lack of talent that I’ve mitigated through transferring fonts on requests. I don’t think that’s a good thing, but my designs are no longer covered by a Geneva convention so that makes me feel better. :)
I get why it is "better" -- CDN, optimized for browser blah blah. But I really wanted to host it myself, because 1) it's my website 2) I don't want every visitor to send a piece of information about themselves to Google just to get some fonts.
But apparently Google is not motivated to offer such a solution, at all.
I have very recent -- like, 2 weeks ago -- successful experience of using these, since I wanted to distribute a WOFF2 as part of a browser extension.
[0] edited to add - you don't have to build it, you can get it from homebrew https://formulae.brew.sh/formula/woff2 or an Arch package https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/woff2/ and presumably other distros
At that time it would take me more than a few minutes (which was what I had), and seemed a rabbit hole. I decided not to pursue that.
If you don't believe me, you are welcome to try it out yourself FROM SCRATCH without any references whatsoever, and see how long it takes you to come up a solution that works on all 5 or 6 platforms, desktop or mobile.
From memory, what I would do is simply download the original ttfs or otfs, run them through woff2 (https://github.com/google/woff2), and then write the @font-face declarations for each weight/style variation. Variable fonts make this even easier, since you can get by with just the one declaration.
One could further optimise them for size with fonttools, to do stuff like subsetting by unicode ranges (https://github.com/fonttools/fonttools), but that's quite optional. Unless your font includes CJK, it's probably not that big to begin with.
It's not a lie—I've been doing exactly that as long as Google fonts has been a thing.
I think people are confusing what was required in the back in the day when browsers were buggy and supported different font formats--15+ years ago.
The technique was called the "bullet proof" @font-face syntax because it "solved" getting web fonts to work across operating systems and devices in the 2010's [1]:
If you weren't doing web development back then, you don't understand what a revelation this syntax was for supporting cross-browser web fonts. There were even websites that would generate the syntax for you. BTW, woff2 didn't exist then.It seems that some developers, like the Japanese soldiers who didn't stop fighting WWII until the 1970's because they didn't know the war ended in 1945 [2], still believe dealing with fonts in 2025 is like it was 15 years ago.
It's never been easier to self-host fonts… why make an additional HTTPS request if you don't have to?
There are plenty of utilities to compress TrueType or OpenType fonts to WOFF2.
[1]: https://www.paulirish.com/2009/bulletproof-font-face-impleme...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroo_Onoda
https://dev.to/rstacruz/public-cdns-arent-useful-anymore-2b6...
It's also not nearly as unbelievable as you seem to think it sounds that it could be happening without anyone blowing the whistle. What would you expect to happen if they did? Does "Google tracks lied about tracking users through front downloads" sound like front page news, or something that would stay on people's radar for more than a day or two even if it was? It's hard to imagine that there would be any sort of fine that would reach a level that mattered to Google, or that the recent antitrust case would have had a different outcome if only the font conspiracy had been discovered. Trying to blow the whistle on it just wouldn't be worth it.
Wait a moment, why should this be Google's job? They're not the lords of your HTML and CSS. In fact, they have no duty to help you with anything at all, and neither does anybody else except your mother.
WAT
Like, as someone who teaches IT -- an article like this getting this high in hacker news is just very wild to me. Which is to say:
The answer that ought to be obvious to this crowd is "Download it and link to it in your HTML/CSS in your local html directory."
Now, I'm aware that at least part of the reason this isn't the extremely obvious answer has to do with some friction on the downloading as well as perhaps cdn stuff.
But still; wow. As far as we have gotten in some ways, we've clearly lost A LOT of simplicity that shouldn't be -- but apparently -- really difficult to recover.
Writing a tool to do all that work for you is the hacker spirit. Mocking the work is not.
At fonts.google.com:
Find font; click download (it's the SECOND blue button)
Unzip and upload to your website.
What am I missing here?
Is it not as simple as...
https://github.com/ebrasha/abdal-ttf-woff2
It might be because it's a "You should host web fonts from Google Fonts yourself" in disguise. The technical "How to" is almost not the important part here :-)
It may give some pause to web devs who hotlink to google here on HN without much thoughts and make them consider doing it differently next time.
I suspect many people upvoting it are doing it for this. Maybe upvotes here might actually mean "Please host Google Fonts yourself".
I think you can revert by editing your submission afterwards.
I've had to do this several times in the past because the customer firewall blocks google domains, and it never required a second thought. The only question I had was around the legality of doing so (which I checked on). Once I verified that, it was about 2 minutes of wget (or curl) the file down, stick in a static web server, and update the links in the HTML page and Bob's your Uncle
"And perhaps even the idea of having to think about the legality of such things is part of the problem, I can remember when we'd just DO IT."
:)
I'm not sure that it matters that you or Google hosts it. Same as any free software actually.
So things got to become common sense for us because it was easy to get overwhelmed in information on why it should be common sense. The web has changed dramatically - there is a lot of content in Discord servers and it’s rare for frequently asked Discord questions to turn into web content. Common sense isn’t as wide ranging, but that’s been replaced by extreme specialty knowledge.
I see this a lot in software companies when build tools crap out. Younger developers have much more specialized knowledge on the build tools and can outwork me when everything is on the happy path. Off the happy path, all the general bits and pieces we picked up through osmosis back in the day become very helpful.
I’m glad that articles like this are being promoted. This plumbing type knowledge will be useful many many times over the course of a career. Not everything has to be aimed at me to be good, you know?
For example, here's Roboto Mono WOFF2s: https://github.com/googlefonts/RobotoMono/tree/main/fonts/we...
debatable :)
> is not there
https://github.com/google/fonts/tree/main/ofl/notosans
And while you're at it (and you use multiple fonts), you might as well use CSS's font-face to harmonize the different fonts a little. Fonts with the same size might look bigger or smaller to the eye, depending on thickness of the lines and other font styles.
As the website I was optimizing was selfhosted, also selfhosting the font had a noticeable effect on the page load time. See https://github.com/SmilyOrg/photofield/commit/12352667c01624...
I'm not sure what you mean with the rest of the comment though, it's a very small change and it gets cached by the browser like other static assets, so I'm not sure what is the overkill here.
https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/31/website_fine_google_f...
Google Fonts has an open issue that is three years old here, with no response from Google:
https://github.com/google/fonts/issues/5537
https://github.com/google/fonts/issues/1495
> Also, please note that Google LLC is certified under both the EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield frameworks and our certifications can be viewed on the Privacy Shield list.
It’s very important to be aware that the Privacy Shield was declared invalid by the European Court of Justice in 2020, so that note from April 17, 2018 is worthless.
[0] https://files.velocifyer.com/Warant%20canaries/