As with meaningless (and extremely expensive) security badges, it may make the site seem more legit and authoritative. And it’s free.

You use big-brand names everyone recognizes, and associate your site with them. It’s rather desperate, but it builds trust and reassures the user it’s not a scam… because the icon says so.

I especially love how even some big sites out there use their own security badges and such adornments. A stock vector that says „100% secure“, that’s perfection.

Conversation with a client goes like this:

Client: “The homepage looks empty, could you add credit cards and cheques we accept, somewhere around… right here?”

You: “Don‘t all of your competitors accept credit cards? People except that, it’s a standard.”

Client: “…”

You:“So… Visa, MasterCard, Diner’s Club, anything else?”

Thanks for getting me to have a second look.

Yes, that section 2 you mention starts on the 11th page, and I’ve posted the excerpt in the previous comment. It allows for commercial use in some cases.

There’s nothing specifically about non-commercial use.

There are only two occurrences of the word “non-commercial” in the entire document, and they are both about the website itself, not about the fonts. Seriously. :) The part about the fonts is the last one, called “END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT – DUBAI FONT”

The following is one of the occurences of the word “non-commercial”, the second one is pretty much the same thing:

“In consideration of you agreeing to abide by the terms of this Agreement, we grant to you a non-transferable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, revocable license in the United Arab Emirates to: (i) use this Website as herein set forth; (ii) copy and store this Website in your web browser cache memory; and (iii) print pages from this Website for your own personal and non-commercial use. You must not modify the paper or digital copies…”

The license mentions limited license is actually for their website, not for the “font software”.

The part that mentions “font software” starts on page 11 of this literary epic. (It’s funny, they clearly did a shoddy copy&paste job in that part. 24-A4-pages-long literary epic; fun read for lunch break. :D )

Anyone considering the font for a client would probably need to hire a lawyer to go through this. All this unnecessary legalese mumbo-jumbo will only deter people who considered using this “free” Monotype font.

Here are the relevant excerpts:

“("Digital Products" means websites, promotional or marketing content delivered via the Internet for display on Output Devices. A Digital Product includes banner ads and display advertisements shown on websites, advertisements in web applications and advertisements in Applications. A Digital Product does not include an Application;”

(e) “to access, download and use the Font Software to (i) create Digital Products or allow a third party to create Digital Products on the Licensee’s behalf; and (ii) embed the Font Software into Digital Products and publish such Digital Products. If the Licensee allows a third party to use the Font Software on the Licensee’s behalf to create Digital Products, the Licensee agrees that (i) such third party will only use the Font Software to create Digital Products on the Licensee’s behalf; (ii) the Licensee will make such third party aware of the terms of this Agreement; (iii) the Licensee will ensure that such third party destroys and deletes all Font Software in its possession and/or control upon completion of their use of the Font Software on the Licensee’s behalf; and (iv) the Licensee shall remain responsible for all acts and omissions of such third party with regards to their use of the Font Software. The Licensee shall embed the Font Software into the Digital Product in a secure manner which does not allow an End User to access the Font Software outside of the Digital Product or permit the extraction or installation of the embedded Font Software.”

(Technically, anyone can extract an embedded web font from any website, so its use for web is not allowed, but I believe other font shops also include this part, so it’s probably fine.)

Included in Microsoft Office 365¼.

No mention of the license, so it should be treated as if the files came from one of those font-sharing sites: toxic waste.

From privacy policy:

“You represent that you are of legal age to form a binding contract. You must be at least 21 years old to be eligible to use this Website. If you are under 21 years of age, you may only use this Website subject to you obtaining the express consent of your parent or guardian who agrees to the terms of this Agreement.”

Can I use ‘grid’?

Beware: it needs Java.

That reminds me the one-liner extension I had to make to disable that godawful elastic rubber-band scrolling, because Safari and other non-native apps do not obey system defaults. (It breaks stuff).

“Only Safari Extensions installed from the Safari Extensions Gallery can be updated automatically.”

I’ve just noticed the extension do not auto-update in Safari 8, despite settings tab clearly stating “Extensions will be automatically updated.”

Google Chrome also restricts extensions now, but at least they have an official repository (including malware, defeating the purpose). Apple’s repository with some 20 privileged extensions won’t cut it.

Just use the tools that can be automated and have – by far – the best results… (ImageAlpha & ImageOptim for PNGs, JPEGmini & ImageOptim for JPGs.) You owe it to your clients and your sites’ visitors.

I’d be interested in a comparison with Squish, but it’s an already lost battle. And just drag & drop anyway. The icon is surely nice, getting it attention. Moving on.

Btw: Its homepage is indexed by Google, but this DN page, on the 2nd page of SERP, is the only relevant result. (And MacUpdate). Oops.

“…people are much more likely to believe something written in Baskerville than any of the other fonts.”

Any other font being Comic Sans MS and Helvetica… :|

Edit: If you look at the results of the online questionnaire, there’s no difference whatsoever.

Yet, the article repeatedly mentions how significant the difference between Georgia and Baskerville is. Turns out, more people agreed with statements written in Helvetica, but a dozen more – out of five thousands – agreed more (“I moderately agree” vs “I strongly agree”) with Baskerville.