问题描述
使用Cufon有什么缺点？在Web标准，辅助功能和性能方面。
What are cons to use Cufon? in term of Web Standards, Accessibility and Performance.
我认为如果我们需要平滑的文本，而sIFR仍然最适合屏幕阅读器兼容性。
I think if we need smooth text than sIFR is still best with screen reader compatibility.
使用@ font-face字体看起来不像Cufon和Sifr。
With @font-face font doesn't look smooth like Cufon and Sifr. but Cufon use canvas tag for each letter which it maked harder to read for screenreaders.
为了使字体流畅，sIFR仍然是最好的和可访问性的兼容性解决方案？
To make font smooth is sIFR still best and accessibility compatibility solution?
使用@ font-face可以获得像图像，sIFR和cufon这样的抗锯齿吗？
Is it possible to get Anti-aliasing like Image, sIFR and cufon with using @font-face?
推荐答案
最好的解决方案是使用@ font-face。已经有@ font-face的故障安全解决方案。 sIFR和Cufon：
The best solution is to use @font-face. There are already fail-safe solutions for @font-face. sIFR and Cufon:
- 难以选择/复制文字
- 禁用js时工作
查看用于故障安全解决方案。
Look at the Fontsquirrel's font-face generator for a fail-safe solution.
锯齿形的角落主要是由操作系统字体API引起的。如果你确实需要有光滑的角色字体，而不是依赖于js / flash，我建议在服务器端生成图像和适当的alt标签。
The jagged corners are mostly caused by the operating systems font API. If you really do need to have smooth cornered fonts, instead of relying on js/flash, I'd suggest generating images on server side and with proper alt tags.
这篇关于什么是利用Cufon？ sIFR还是不错的选择？ @ font-face不会使字母光滑，就像它们看起来与cufon或sIFR的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！