So all of a sudden we have become a design Nazi and telling people what their website can or can't include for design.
The alternative to not allowing custom fonts is that people go back to using text in images to display their custom fonts which sucks when you are dealing with multiple languages or just want to change the text for something else. Or something like Cufon [http://cufon.shoqolate.com]. Or use flash.
I think I prefer webfonts, the developers just need to be smarter about how they are used and the implementation for including them.
Specifying a font for the ordinary text is a perfect example of designers prioritizing self-obsessed wankery over the user.
It's a common phrase used through the US and Europe incidently, and used in the context of what you stated I don't think it is repulsive, but chc has already explained that to you.
I don't think my post is nonsense, but just like you, I am entitled to my opinion. Text is not just for reading, it is also used for design so my opinion is that web fonts have a place on the web, the developers just needed to smarter in the the implementation as I said. With all the sites done these days with HTML5 and CSS3 and using techniques such as parallax scrolling, I don't think half of them would have the effect that they do with "Arial" or "Sans Serif". The web goes beyond reading articles on on HN or NYT believe it or not.
You may be either very young or not an American English speaker, but the phrase "X Nazi" is American slang denoting somebody who is overly strict about whatever X is. It comes from the "Soup Nazi" episode of Seinfeld, in which a soup shop owner would evict customers from his shop with the declaration "NO SOUP FOR YOU" if they didn't follow a very precise procedure for ordering. It is not actually an accusation of Nazism.
That is why I said hyperbolic. It is still a very distasteful response, especially considering what it was replying to. I just read my post again, and I still can't find the part where I told "people what their website can or can't include for design".
You said any designer who chooses a body text font (something designers have been doing for hundreds of years, incidentally) is guilty of "self-obsessed wankery." The difference between that and telling people what they can or can't include is pretty slim.
No, I said a designer who chooses to make their website less usable for the user by forcing a download of a non-standard font (something that hasn't existed for hundreds of years, incidentally) is prioritizing their self-obsessed wankery over what is best for the user.
The difference between that and telling people what they can and can't include is absolutely massive. I am telling web designers (people whose job is to make web content accessible to users) that making content inaccessible is bad design. I am not saying "you can not be a bad designer". You are still allowed to do a bad job. And the rest of the world is allowed to point out that you are doing a bad job. Calling someone a nazi for pointing out that bad design is bad design is not constructive, or productive.
The alternative to not allowing custom fonts is that people go back to using text in images to display their custom fonts which sucks when you are dealing with multiple languages or just want to change the text for something else. Or something like Cufon [http://cufon.shoqolate.com]. Or use flash.
I think I prefer webfonts, the developers just need to be smarter about how they are used and the implementation for including them.