1. I’m a big fan of good fonts and good font combinations.
    Thanks for pointing out the finer points of the font comparison – worth knowing.

  2. I studied the two examples and my eye just isn’t well trained enough to discriminate fully between the types of fonts (Google and Brick).

    I haven’t had any problems with Google Fonts (they seem to be always available and fast) so, I think I’ll stick with them for the time being.

    Lastly, I appreciate all the initiatives to improve the web’s typography.

  3. This articles is only missing one thing – a size comparison between google’s offering and Brick’s. Then you’ve got everything you need to make a decision.

    1. Here’s a quick comparison of the .woff asset load for Libre Baskerville as loaded on the comparison pages linked in this article:

      Brick: 302.9kb
      Google: 91.4kb

      My system didn’t have to download the EB Garamond, but others might, which would add:

      Brick: 217kb
      Google: 27.7kb

      For a grand total of:

      Brick: 519.9kb
      Google: 119.1kb

      1. Adding 400k to the initial site load? Doesn’t seem worth it to me.
        Would there be a way in CSS to use Google by default, but if they have the Brick version to use that?

        1. Actually – for the site I’ve just finished building – http://timeandtidewatches.com I’m only using Montserrat 400, and the difference for that is between Google 14.5k and Brick 21k. Deal.

      2. Those are both relatively large fonts with large character sets. The average font size right now is around 75KB.

        1. Thanks for that info Alfred. Cool service you’re providing here.

          Do you have any information about the character sets supported by each font? I work with products that need to be translate-able so I like that Google Fonts lets me see what character sets (Latin, Cyrillic, etc) are supported. Do the Brick versions offer all the same character sets as the equivalent Google Font?

  4. Jacob

    HUGE difference between demos in Chrome on Windows 7.

    Google fonts often look awful, Brick fonts actually look decent.

  5. Zulfikar Nore

    A nice addition to the tool kit.

    The only issue I’m seeing is the end user license – Open source + Public Domain are fine for contribution but usage wise only Public Domain CC By 0 is compatible with GPL in terms of themes hosted in the WordPress repository.

    Any clarification/link to the actual end user license? GPL, MIT or only CC By X?

    1. It looks like the license is stored with each font so you can check it out before using it. I looked at a few and they were mostly SIL Open Font License, which I believe is compatible but would love to hear confirmation from someone who has actually addressed the issue.

    2. As Nate mentioned, the licenses are font-specific. Most of them are SIL, some are Apache, and a couple are LaTeX.

  6. Flick

    And there was me thinking that it was just my old laptop making the fonts show up a little threadbare. Can breathe a sigh of relief now so thanks, Sarah. Will definitely be considering Brick Font on sites where sites where text >> images since this should improve the visual experience. With reference to other comments: hopefully one day there will be a compromise between Brick and Google.

  7. Zulfikar Nore

    @Nate & @Alex,

    Thanks for clearing that up and pointing in the right direction for the license :)

    Glad to see most of the fonts are under the SIL license and that makes it a relief for us WordPress.org developers – will more than likely switch to Brick for my next theme :)

  8. delta323

    Any chance of updating this for the current theme, Twenty Fourteen? I’d appreciate it. John Tranter, Sydney.

Comments are closed.