Welcome to the Treehouse Community
Want to collaborate on code errors? Have bugs you need feedback on? Looking for an extra set of eyes on your latest project? Get support with fellow developers, designers, and programmers of all backgrounds and skill levels here with the Treehouse Community! While you're at it, check out some resources Treehouse students have shared here.
Looking to learn something new?
Treehouse offers a seven day free trial for new students. Get access to thousands of hours of content and join thousands of Treehouse students and alumni in the community today.
Start your free trial
Patrick Brown
7,995 PointsQuestion about "Viewport Sized Typography & FitText.js"
I understand why this might be important for designers who want a greater level of control over their designs, but I would think calling another .js script (either externally or internally) and having the browser render one more design element might add to the overall page weight.
Considering we're strongly considering mobile design in the responsive section, does this section truly reflect best practices?
Sure it looks great, but suppose I'm trying to order cupcakes over a spotty connection with an older phone, is the nicer text worth the extra second to pull the script off the server and execute it?
Or am I just being pedantic and nitpicky about page weight and the mobile user experience?
1 Answer
Steven Schweibold
7,742 PointsIt's a legitimate question, but not a concern. A minified version of Fittext is only 380 bytes and ~30 lines of code.
Corey Baker
4,890 PointsCorey Baker
4,890 PointsI'm with you in terms of adding additional js for the browser can definitely be a concern in overall load time; especially when referring to a viewing this via mobile. That being said, I think what they're trying to do is show us that we have different options to go with in terms adjusting typography in responsive design. I think whether or not to use FitText.js in our work ultimately comes down to what site we are creating. If it already has the burden of loading many other resources than we might want to consider going a different route. In contrast, if the site doesn't have that we have this option to go with.
You're not being nitpicky either; I think it's awesome that you're thinking this way! Shows that you just don't want to throw a bunch of stuff in your site without thinking about how this could affect the end user.