Font behavior of different e-readers

[beiti]

Since embedding fonts (especially for running text) is highly controversial I came up with the idea of just using some of the built-in fonts of different e-readers.
I saw that my Kindle Paperwhite comes with Bookerly, Baskerville, Amazon Ember, Caecilia etc. and my Tolino Page has built-in Bitter, Fira Sans, SourceSans etc.
So the idea was instead of embedding fonts or assigning just generic font names like "sans-serif", I could use some of the existing font names:

font-family: "Bitter"; "Caecilia"; serif;

When opened on a Tolino reader, the font "Bitter" should be used. When opened on a Kindle reader (where Bitter isn't available) it would be "Caecilia" instead. And as a fallback for other readers there still is the generic "serif".

Nice plan. Just doesn't work.

In Sigil I created a test epub file containing short texts formatted with different font names, just to see which ones would be displayed correctly on what reader. (I also made a mobi version using the KindleGen plugin.)
In addition to the e-reader's built-in font names I also used common Windows font names like Arial and Times New Roman, and I also embedded three less common fonts to see how they are displayed.

My Kindle Paperwhite seem to show most of it as intended. The built-in fonts like Caecilia or OpenDyslexic are used correctly. The missing fonts are replaced by a sans-serif font (I assume it's Helvetica). The embedded fonts are also shown correctly.
Arial ist replaced by Helvetica - but since every unknown font is replaced by Helvetica it doesn't mean that Kindle really recognizes Arial. (Times New Roman and Courier New are also replaced by Helvetica.)

My Tolino Page shows almost everything in it's own standard font (which is an extra serif font that doesn's show up among the fonts I can select manually). That means, on Tolino you cannot use the built-in fonts by assigning their font names via css (which makes my initial idea obsolete). The only way to use these fonts is manually selecting one of them at a time in the settings.
Only the generic names "monospace" and "sans-serif" lead to different fonts, and also the three embedded fonts are shown correctly.

Now I wanted to know what happens when I change the standard font settings of each reader.

Tolino is first set at "Publisher's font". When I select one of the alternative fonts, the whole text is shown in this newly selected font. Neither the embedded fonts nor the generic font names are used any more.

Kindle is also set to "Publisher Font" as a default and behaves just like Tolino: When I select any new font, all the existing fonts get replaced by the new one.

But then I wanted to know if it can make a difference if the ebook files contains embedded fonts or not. So I created an extra "nef" Version (No Embedded Fonts) of my test file.
For Tolino it doesn't make a difference. As soon as I switch off "Publisher's font" and select any other font in the list, no css font definition is respected any more. So there is no way to just select a different "running text font" and leave all the assigned fonts untouched.
Kindle on the other hand shows a Difference. When I open the version without the embedded fonts, there isn't even a "Publisher Font" option any more, and the pre-selected choice is now Bookerly. All the other fonts are shown with the css assigned typeface, just like the other version when "Publisher Font" is enabled. The difference is that I can now choose which font to use as a replacement for missing font files - a choice that Kindle doesn's give me any more as soon as the ebook file also contains some embedded fonts. Strange.

----------------------

I hope this wasn't too confusing.
Maybe people who own some other e-readers can try out my test files as well and post their experiences here.

[Notjohn]

I think it's best left alone. A reader could be annoyed that he/she/it can't use his/her/its favorite typeface, and annoyed readers are the ones who leave one-star reviews.

It's like the desire of poets to see their masterpiece displayed on the ebook screen exactly as they typed them in Word. Let the defaults rule, and everyone will be happier in the end of things.

[Turtle91]

I agree with Notjohn, you don't want to force your desire for a particular font onto the reader....

...UNLESS...

... that particular font is specifically needed to help tell the story. Those should be few and far between...such as chapter headings or specific parts of a chapter or image. In such a case, you definitely need to embed the font so it is guaranteed to be available to the epub. Be aware that there are some devices out there that won't pay attention to your styling anyway.....


Also, just fyi, make sure you are using the correct syntax for your font. You need comma's between the font options, not semi-colons:

font-family: "Bitter", "Caecilia", serif;

[JSWolf]

The problem is that most fonts that are used for pBooks are too thin for use on an eInk screen. Here's another suggestion to not embed fonts.

Also, do not try to make your eBook look like the pBook version if it doesn't work all that well. I've seen lots of eBooks made that way and they need fixing.

[beiti]

Okay, this discussion seems to go in the wrong direction. I didn't want to start another "embed vs. not embed" discussion.
The fact that my Kindle Paperwhite seems to handle e-books with embedded fonts basically different than e-books without embedded fonts was just an accidental observation I made during my tests. To avoid confusion I shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. I'm sorry.

In fact, my initial idea was all about avoiding to embed fonts. I thought I could use the fonts that are already stored inside common e-readers. It worked out (mostly) with the Kindle Paperwhite, but not so much with the Tolino.
Now that I tested it with my Kindle and Tolino e-readers I would be interested how other devices handle certain font names (when the fonts are not embedded).

Let's just assume for a moment I know that most of my readers will read my book on a Tolino e-reader or app. Since fonts like 'Bitter', 'Fira Sans' or 'OpenDyslexic' are available on most (if not all) Tolino e-readers/apps, I thoght I could just assign these font names via CSS (without embedding them) and the reader would show them. But it does not - or I'm doing something wrong (and it's not the comma vs. semi-colon thing - because in my example files I only use one font name at a time).
The only way to get other fonts than the standard font on Tolino seem to be the generic names like 'sans-serif' or 'monospace'.

It's different on the Kindle. Here I can use the names of built-in fonts like 'Caecilia' or 'Baskerville' in the CSS and then these fonts are in fact shown (except for 'Caecilia Condensed'). Since Amazon customers tend to use only Kindle devices/apps it could be a good concept to make use of those Kindle font names whenever I need a font that's not standard. But unfortunately I found out that, other than Tolino, for Kindle there is no fixed list of fonts (e.g. in my Kindle app on Windows I can only choose between 'Bookerly' and 'Georgia').

There are some more oberservations with the built-in fonts:
Seems like both my e-readers have some additional fonts built in that are not in the list you can manually choose from. Both e-readers have a Courier-like monospace fonts that show up only if you assign 'monospace' in the CSS. On Kindle it seems really to be Courier. Oddly, the Tolino doesn't recognize the font name "Courier" and uses its standard serif font instead, so you only get the built-in Courier (or whatever its name is) if you assign 'monospace'.

[hobnail]

I agree with Notjohn and Turtle91, and will add that on the Kobo it doesn't even honor "font-family:monospace;".

I didn't know about "font-family:fantasy;" until I was looking into the Kobo problem of not supporting monospace. Made me wonder what font is used when a web browser or ereader implements that.

[jackie_w]

Originally Posted by hobnail

... and will add that on the Kobo it doesn't even honor "font-family:monospace;".

In case you weren't already aware, Kobo fw 4.19.xx and above will honour font-family:monospace; in standard epubs as long as you sideload a monospace font whose internal fontname starts with Courier.

There's a little more flexibility with fontname if you use the kobopatch system.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by hobnail

I agree with Notjohn and Turtle91, and will add that on the Kobo it doesn't even honor "font-family:monospace;".

I didn't know about "font-family:fantasy;" until I was looking into the Kobo problem of not supporting monospace. Made me wonder what font is used when a web browser or ereader implements that.

To solve the Kobo monospace problem, on 4.19 or 4.20 install the font Courier New in the fonts directory. monospace will use that without the need to patch.

[hobnail]

Originally Posted by jackie_w

...

Originally Posted by JSWolf

...

Thanks but I don't consider the lack of monospace a big enough problem to bother with sideloading a fixed width font that meets their requirements.

But I do think it's crap since monospace works fine on a stock kindle, and I do like to whine about it.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by hobnail

Thanks but I don't consider the lack of monospace a big enough problem to bother with sideloading a fixed width font that meets their requirements.

But I do think it's crap since monospace works fine on a stock kindle, and I do like to whine about it.

Given the solution is very simple and you refuse to do something about it, stop whining and move along.

[beiti]

From a publisher's point of view I wouldn't rely on Kobo owners manually installing an extra font for monospace. Most people don't know this or don't care.
So If I was publishing on the Kobo platform and I really needed a typewriter-styled font for some parts of my book, looks like I had to go the "hard way" and embed a suitable font. This still seems to be the most reliable way (despite some e-readers that don't even show embedded fonts).

[phillipgessert]

I think you might be barking up the wrong tree a bit worrying too much about body font. That work's already done, because the reader did it, and they won't usually welcome an alternate.

In other words you don't have to worry about what the reader first sees as their default, because the best scenario is that they'll see exactly what they expected, and you don't have to do anything to achieve that.

[beiti]

Originally Posted by phillipgessert

worrying too much about body font.

I think I never did. Maybe that was part of the whole misunderstanding. I wrote too much and maybe in a confusing way...

I don't care about the default font of an e-reader and I would never try to force my own font choice to the reader. It's only about special paragraphs that need special fonts.
I have e.g. published an ebook about typing and formatting screenplays for the German market. In one chapter I explain the basic rules on how to do punctuation etc. correctly. For every explanation I add a short example. These examples already have an indent to separate them from the runnig text, but it would be even clearer if they could also be in a typewriter-styled font.

[phillipgessert]

My take is that you can code it that way but you would be well advised to be ok with it not appearing that way for some folks. Fairly certain that fancy styling on body > p.fancy is not terribly reliable. Wiser folks may weigh in.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by beiti

I think I never did. Maybe that was part of the whole misunderstanding. I wrote too much and maybe in a confusing way...

I don't care about the default font of an e-reader and I would never try to force my own font choice to the reader. It's only about special paragraphs that need special fonts.
I have e.g. published an ebook about typing and formatting screenplays for the German market. In one chapter I explain the basic rules on how to do punctuation etc. correctly. For every explanation I add a short example. These examples already have an indent to separate them from the runnig text, but it would be even clearer if they could also be in a typewriter-styled font.

You could try American Typewriter. But whatever font you choose, make sure it looks good on an eInk screens one with 300DPI and one with a resolution of 800x600. It the font works on both, then it's OK to use.