Comments on: Cufón vs sIFR Which one is better?

By: Eren Emre Kanal

Eren Emre Kanal — Sun, 31 May 2009 18:46:45 +0000

Stacie, I have no experience with Facelift but it looks like Cufon is still faster than it.

By: Stacie

Stacie — Sun, 31 May 2009 18:41:10 +0000

What’s the difference between Cufon and Facelift?

By: Onur Oztaskiran

Onur Oztaskiran — Wed, 13 May 2009 22:56:48 +0000

Dude, you just made my day.

I haven’t been aware of a js based solution for typeface replacement other sIFR which I hated afterall.

I love you Eren. I do.

By: Cufón - eine Alternative zu sIFR? « Webdevteam’s Blog

Cufón - eine Alternative zu sIFR? « Webdevteam’s Blog — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:42:53 +0000

[…] Einen Vergleich zwischen sIFR (sIFR 2, sIFR3 beta, sIFR Generator) und cufón findet man hier. […]

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:26:35 +0000

I never even heard of Cufon - thanks for the introduction!

By: Enes Kabacaoglu

Enes Kabacaoglu — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:53:35 +0000

Cufón seems better than sIFR because of its javascript based being. On the other hand its good to see a serious alternative of sIFR around.

By: hank

hank — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:12:17 +0000

Cufón is better on a lot of fronts, but there are 2 big drawbacks as far as I can see, that you haven’t mentioned:

1. There seems no way to be able to select (and thus copy, paste) the replaced text other than to select the whole page or at least a large chunk of the page around the selected text. This is quite a usability drawback that sIFR doesn’t share.

2. There are currently a lot of legal limitations to using a font-embedding system like Cufón on a LOT of typefaces. Luckily Adobe’s licenses allow this, but for many others, an extended license is required.

These two issues are very significant (at least for me) and need to be given due consideration.