How and when to use SIFR

Author: Ahom 2005-5-28 16:05:36

• Original: http://usabletype.com/articles/2004/how-and-when-to-use-sifr/
• Original Author: Andrew Hume
• Translation: Ahom

Before analyzing sIFR, start by quickly understanding what SIFR is and how it works. SIFR represents the scalable Inman Flash replacement, a technology that accurately publishes custom typography on the web. This technique is achieved by replacing some text with the text rendered by the flash in a specified element when the page is downloaded. It is important to understand that this element is not completely replaced by flash, that the text is still inside the element, and that the element can still be styled or positioned as usual.

Some facts about sIFR: not for debate

• SIFR does not need to change (X) HTML code, all work is done by JavaScript, Flash and CSS;
• If the user does not have Flash installed or does not support JavaScript, then (X) HTML text will be styled and displayed by CSS.
• The SIFR is scalable and can be changed to the default font size set for the user when rendering.
• SIFR compatible with all screen readers, so far no problem has been reported.
• sIFR text can be selected by the mouse, although the selected state does not appear to be accurate when the text is selected entirely.
• SIFR does not affect the search engine positioning and evaluation, will not hide the real text content.

The conclusion should be that sIFR is an easy-to-use, prudent technique that designers and developers should give serious consideration to when using.

When to use sIFR

As with all web technologies, it is important to know the best way to use SIFR, and to be able to understand the most appropriate use of the situation. This refers to choosing the right tool for the job, especially when SIFR as a tool to jump out of the toolbox for us to use.

Case: A large sports news site decided to design all the titles into a unique font for the company. News reports (including their titles) are published in different places by different people around the world through some content management software. They can't hire people to sit in front of Photoshop and create a headline picture each time they want to add news stories.

In this case, SIFR is an absolutely simple, reusable, and extensible tool. Some news sites solve this problem by using PHP to create pictures, or use other server-side tools. This is a good way to save time, but when compared to SIFR, it sees many drawbacks:

• The picture cannot be scaled to the user's default font size.
• Although the picture is cached on the server, there is still a performance problem when creating the picture.
• Each picture must be downloaded separately, causing the server and bandwidth consumption.

With sIFR, only a flash (. swf) file and a JavaScript (. js) file are downloaded, and all the titles on the site are rendered as company fonts.

This example is not groundless. This is a real case in 2001, in order to redesign Espn.com,mike Davidson developed the original flash replacement technology. Since then, with the addition of Shaun Inman and others, this has developed into the complete and fluent technology we have today, and is likely to have a major impact on web typesetting technology in the 2005.

Use sIFR on a link

The latest version of SIFR allows link text to be replaced. Although this is an exciting development, but it is not suitable for use on such occasions. This is due to the following accessibility issues:

• Does not support the right click function of the browser (context menu)
• The option key for Apple is not supported
• No status bar information

While these issues seem trivial, many people find the lack of these features frustrating. Without the status bar information, you can't get a clue to the next address you want to visit; With the popularity of Firefox and opera browsers, the contextual menu of the right button is becoming an increasingly useful tool. Although sIFR provides a basic right-click on the link, the context menu for the browser is inaccessible.

Of course, this is a limitation of flash rather than SIFR itself. These problems seem to be overcome in the future. For example, the status bar can be controlled by JavaScript, so it should not be difficult to increase the ability to display a link target. However, before Flash allows the full browser context menu to be provided on the link, I'm sure sIFR is still unable to fully handle this type of text.

Anti-aliasing

sIFR Most of the benefits are focused on the ability to customize fonts, an important consideration is that flash text can be antialiasing. Web developers often forget this, partly because so much of the work is done with Mac OS X, and its quartz fonts can produce smooth edges. However, the user of Windows (although the option to have a smooth font edge somewhere in the display menu) does not appear to be antialiasing, making it an important consideration to have the ability to display anti-aliasing titles, just like users who have Windows XP or Mac OS x installed.

Fine adjustment

I have heard a question that has been mentioned many times that SIFR does not allow control of text as much as a picture can possibly do. That's true. Images created with Photoshop or fireworks, you can accurately control kerning, stretching, anti-aliasing, or other features, such as a very accurate drop shadow. The image editor is a real WYSIWYG (WYSIWYG) medium. sIFR, which is rendered as flash, is not.

If you need to achieve this level of control, then a picture is still the best way to publish such text, in which case SIFR is not the right tool. However, if you are simply publishing a custom font, SIFR is more appropriate than creating a picture.

Download speed

When using SIFR, the coloring speed of the alternate text is an important consideration, although the speed has improved a lot since the earlier version, but if there are many SIFR instances on the same time screen, there is still a noticeable delay. (for example, each page has a title, or each transmission has a title) This example may best illustrate why moderate use of SIFR is the ideal way to use this technique at the moment.

This is the most frustrating drawback of replacing technology with Flash. The temptation is to replace too many elements on one page from the time the first SIFR are implemented. In order to achieve them, the download speed must be greatly improved; Although a good server can help you, the real time consuming is running those bulky JavaScript.

Summarize

SIFR does not compete with picture replacement technology; it's a unique tool for different jobs. It can be best used on text that is displayed as the default font size for browsers and cannot be replaced with a self built picture.

The ideal use for SIFR is when you want to display a custom font or anti-aliasing title with just one picture. This is used very frequently on the web, and sIFR is a better choice in these cases. It can be scaled to the user's default font size, can be selected, can be used on thousands of pages and only need to download one or two files.

Summary

• Use sIFR on the page title.
• Limited use of SIFR to get the best download time.
• Do not use SIFR on the link.

RELATED LINKS

• Mike davidson:introducing sifr:the Healthy alternative to Browser Text
• Mike DAVIDSON:SIFR 2.0 RC 3 is here ... Come Get Some
• Dave Shea on SIFR