Why do designers use sIFR if they can use @font-face?

Question

Why do designers use sIFR if they can use @font-face ?

What is wrong with @font-face ?

@font-face {
    font-family: "Hacen Tehran_eot";
    src: url('Hacen Tehran.eot');
}

@font-face {
    font-family: "Hacen Tehran_ttf";
    src: url('Hacen Tehran.ttf');
}

p {
    font-family:"Hacen Tehran_eot", "Hacen Tehran_ttf", sans-serif;
    font-size:40px;
}

Answer 1

What is wrong with @font-face ?

It's new, or at least compatible browser support for it is new.

Until very recently, the only browser to support it was IE, and then only with the EOT font format, which could only be generated by the complicated and unpopular WEFT application.

There are still format problems today. Although WOFF is the clear future winner, we've still got some recent browsers that need TTF/OTF instead, plus iPhone and its bizarre SVG fonts, and of course plenty of IE<9 browsers that want EOT.

Combine this with the issue of finding fonts whose licences actually allowed them to be embedded in a web page, and @font-face was a non-starter. The licence situation has got much better recently, with plenty of good-quality fonts available for real web embedding.

But still, chances are if you've already picked a font, especially from one of the major foundries who are still dragging their heels, it's not going to be possible to license it. Vector-based replacement techniques like sIFR and Cufon are more like the regular embedding that traditional licences often allow, and image-based replacement techniques don't need an embedding licence at all.

Answer 2

There are a few possible reasons:

You can embed many more fonts into Flash than you can currently get a licensed font-face compatible version of.

Even when you can get a licensed version it is often less expensive to use the font files you have that are compatible with Flash instead of buying new font-face versions.

Font-face versions of fonts are often licensed based on traffic instead of the flat rate designers are used to for desktop licensing. If you expect a site to get 10 Million page views per month its possible that the client might not want to pay the licensing for those fonts.

Some designers just don't know how to use font-face as well, but that is just a matter of education.

Answer 3

@font-face relies on the rendering engine of the browsers its text is appearing in so it may very well look aliased on Windows machines. This is true of Google Web Fonts and, I assume, of Typekit and similar services--this is why I continue to use sIFR. I've got a more expanded answer to this post's question here: What are cons to use Cufon? Is sIFR still good option? @font-face doesn't make the letters smooth like they look with cufon or sIFR

Answer 4

You cannot do complicated gradient effects such as horizontal colour scaling with sIFR whereas this can be quickly put together in a flash file.