 is that this is the physical environment that we're pushing for. We started about three years ago. Typekit launched. Typekit was a service that just I understand. Talk.txt is coming along. Talk.com is coming along. And there are actually about, I think, 12 or so different types of services that are out here to launch on great typefaces of your site that you can be done in your city. It doesn't really matter how this option of using Google and you should try it, it's not a difficult thing to do. It's your effort to assist yourself. But it actually gives you so much understanding that it's how it all works. So that way you can then turn around and say, this is still essentially brand new. It has been around for a little while, a year or two, but the standards for Fox format are too new. There is no one format of WebCon that you can use to talk to your Fox forward browser because there's nothing to worry about. There's an open type format that you can watch. So why is it, if you can just say, this is this new, and there's loads of devices on which you want to display them. It's still fairly new, so it means that companies have to go back and adjust how things work. All things that, you know, literally trying to flip pictures. So you have displays that regulations range from 72 dot frames up to over 300 dot frames. And you're trying to get a letter form to render well. Six to seven, it used to be something that actually was a physical measurement. Now it's really just a standard reference point for it. So we said 70 to DPR, and we said, already these kind of reverberations flipped it. So there are a lot of issues. And most of those issues are actually related to what can it talk to on Windows. So that's why I do dump on Windows a little bit, because what it needs is that talk company is not to go back and spend hundreds and hundreds of hours by hand when you take a break from it, yet you have to go and show it to the client. The talks that are relevant are ones that will, these are the kinds of things that you have. I know a bit about what kind of others are about talks, but they're up until I really encourage you to read reality content. So this is a very important point to remember. This is not the resource spot. So they're going back, and Adobe is doing this, a lot of times they're doing this, and they are taking advantage of their dedication. So by using web service, you're leveraging all that content. And most often it's one line that does get out of JavaScript or CSS, that goes to your site. A little bit trickier than, you might, there are some modules that do allow you to bring it where it's not really used, that's not your case module. That is still, it's still developing. But the interesting thing about it is that staff at the approach starts saying, the starting selectors are looking at the staff, saying, how about set modules to bring in the staff? That's very interesting thing. Staffs, students, students, they work, and it's excellent. That's moving along. Whether or not that's the eventual solution doesn't matter. But the fact is that there's a lot of, except the ability to preview, there's lots of people who don't want to, obviously, assess your team. Because you focus on the stuff that you know, you get to use your secret cross, you want to make sure that you do this. There's a litany of things here. And I haven't heard of a broad range of stuff. Design and type however is all the way through. Now, I apologize if this has been too basic for some or for others. It is a range of things that you need to do, webfogs, to make your impression. There are, you know, there are lots of techniques that have extensive weights that you can use them. And there's no reason not to put the, there's no substitution to be able to, the fact that design is done by default has a, as some of you have been, been folks for 20 years, I don't know how to explain it, but then the other 99% of people out there who are what the people in front, in fact, or flash, fun style text, is what happens before the folks look. Because they do talk to them, they do get talks, but there are pieces of them that have to be made on your page. And there is a certain amount of knowledge that there are two different ways that I think I've over-tied lots of folks, I style a sweet deal-breaker. And that's something that you have to mitigate, either by design or by convention, and that doesn't matter. But Google's webfog-breaker, which is something that was developed in the East, and is something that allows us to guess and do something that makes it look good, and cross-out-conference supports it, type-touch supports it, Google, I don't know if any of the other services are for this thing. And the reason is, because of how it's done to change. Sometimes, if you use CSS only, they have their webfogs, it will use in your webfog where in-depth class is in the HTML type on your page, during the class. So that you, with your CSS, whether or not you know it, whether or not both webfogs are in it, and that is entirely crossed. WS-based loading, or efficient loading, but those are kind of the key points. So you know when it's time, you know what's attractive, or if it's failed, so in your CSS, you can have a regular stand just for how it looks with your full-spot staff with the webfog in it, it's now time for it. So you can have it all back there. Then you can also have a stand-in usually with this database. So there's a box that still works here, but there's just two of the spots that you've got that's been talked about by you from our talk quite a while. These work in a great book, a lot of time, we'll look at part of it. I encourage you to read it, because it will change the way you design your stuff to a different piece. It has a lot more to do with how a website behaves going through a mobile device product, but your CSS always should be the same way all the webfogs there, or make sure that your designer acts appropriately for all of those cases. So your page could be completely different because they saw that spot, so that you're touched a little bit here, but there's only a few. But what about no JavaScript? You know, it's getting smaller and smaller as you search for the percentage, but even if it was, say, 5% of people up in China decided maybe because they're corporate environment or because there's some other reason. So that's something that you really want to make sure is there. So while you have everything loaded using JavaScript, you can do all the things up. And so that way, I'm covered. If JavaScript isn't there, if you don't load anywhere, I'll lose a little bit of my fine team, but at least it began to go up. They always can do a lot of these things to set things in place, and I'm kind of doing these types of really exciting things. You don't have to repeat yourself all the time. It's not using that scene as a good power-up. Whether we design, we don't use, we have a little conversation between different currencies and our response to design. And I've got that into the base scene and the response to design. A little bit of a hint, although this is a significant back page as a webcast should be. That's what it looks like when webcasts are turned off. You can freeze, but with a few semesters of noise that might be visible, it's not a much better explanation. It's not something to leave live because you're being advised to steer clear of self-cultivations that the party creates. For a long time, that was really my expense because the rendering of self-cultivation smaller-sized, it was usually pretty poor. The screen quality, and the broader capabilities in the app are especially in terms of CSS3, which is doing a lot of things, but is a recipe for thinking. The readability of the self-case in answers, yes. And it is, again, it can be a really effective design tool. On my own website, I have something where I can showcase a little bit when you mouse over along with the text, and it's not always perfect. It's better. And again, we're doing the same step, and HTML5 is going to be an official standard this year with full implementation by 2020. Really, that's absolutely what it is. I'm working on HTML5 today. I'm using a lot of things, but I'm also using a lot of things to make sure that it still works everywhere else, knowing what those controls are. So, you have to know that underlined in particular, if you have a linked underlined, and it is rotated again. So, some of these things, you just have to gather your own little list of boxes. But, yeah, it can be great. You like to have to be careful. Oftentimes, it's done for the style of writing. Okay, the question is about performance concerns using web fonts for body text. And it has to load no matter what. But things are loading faster and faster than I used to buy text files. If you are careful about the ones that you choose, I'd actually rate you. Because the interesting thing is, there's no performance in drawing a thousand characters versus drawing a hundred. So, if you're using anything at all, you may as well use it on a whole page. But, you know, it does make you do things that you need to make sure that it renders well, because what is often the case is that, looking at it on that person's windows, you might see things, in particular, in this far-away web pit browser, fonts look a little bit smaller. They might look a little bit more brilliant, instead of really big blocks. And so, you might have to adjust sizes a little bit more. Now, that's not a fault I desire. It's because it's being drawn more smoothly. But the visual appearance of that is something that can really impact your design. So, I don't think it's a performance issue. When you follow those basic rules, only make the way it's set to meet. Now, the thing is that using the probiotics is that you need form. That's how they're given. You have to have a normal weight, bold and tall, or bold and tall. So, right off the bat, you will connect all of the two hundred characters with your little work force, what's being downloaded in form to your product, to your traffic. I don't think that's a little better. And then you throw in the work flow to display things, to find things like that. You're feeling well when you're sitting on a plate, people probably aren't doing that. And I'm noticing that you're left if you use some of these tricks to get the place to draw, get it to approximate things well. And then when the form comes in, it's a very small adjustment of what people are seeing visually. I don't think it's much, much time. There was actually one other thing that I wanted to mention almost once. There was this CFS style of jest that is supposed to help approximate that height and breadth of the portion of funks. It's only supported by one browser. It will eventually get better. And that may be another piece to add into complex, long-term conversations to help you quantify two things. But that's really more about the sort of kind of goal of mitigating the experience while the place is running. But again, overall, I don't think that's really easy. Well, the question was related to the pricing with most of these services. And is that an influence for most of myself for these services? Is that? But I'll share with you a little bit about what I mean. And really what it comes down to is when you're using Fox on streaming, the hot vendors have to make money. They develop a huge amount of technology that goes into these Fox. They spend time, they can spend time deciding and getting them to look really useful. So they need to get paid 10-ounce. So we're not buying a Fox library. I think 10-ounce is going to spend eight or 10-ounce dollars on Fox library. And that would get them license fees, all these tech places to see their designs. But when we're talking about usage on the web, and these services, we don't have to pay anything to go sign up and use one of these services. And so there has to be some kind of revenue model. And most of them have settled on something that ties back to case use, which to me seems really fair. Because we look at the traffic on the sites that we work on, most of them would fall under a quarter million case use funds. Not all, but I think a fair number of people in this room would be just fine about that whole $10 a month. That access to 12,000 Fox would catch a little bit less than that, telling some of the other states. So it's all in that ballpark, kind of access to thousands of type cases from the UK for usage. Now that would be across multiple domains, and that's what's kind of nice, I think it's kind of nice to put all of my clients in there because they never get on a silly little bit of that boundary. Where I've seen some of these come up is with an organization that has literally millions of case use. And they all have their own CVN, Boston University, that I did a really good talk about that a few months ago. And their take was that there are a lot of CVN in place, and only the folks they want to use will have the right to do it so they want to use it themselves. But I think over time things will probably shift, but I imagine that there's a case for each model that's just how it really is. I'll be there to share what I learned, so please feel free to come up and ask me all the questions you want and touch each of your Twitter