In the past I've been able to just import Font Awesome and custom icons into <a href="https://icomoon.io/app" rel="nofollow">https://icomoon.io/app</a> and create a custom kit that way. That's something that has existed for free for quite some time now with support for png/svg/font exports. It looks like the Font Awesome guys just put a price tag on an existing idea. Is there something novel about this that I'm missing?
This is neat. Dumb question, but one I think a lot of your clients will have: how easy is it to drop one of these sets into Bootstrap and have them work the same way Glyphicons do?
These icons are so nice they make me want to write a bunch of apps just for the sake of using the particular icons...<p>Ooh weather icons. I think another weather app is needed....
As you can download custom iconfont and put in on any static server, it happens that they actually sell ~1mb static hosting for 100$ year.
It does not make any sense.
Do you guys have data on the tradeoff between subsetting for smaller file size and cache hits? When people use subsets on the CDN, are they de-duped so the same subset on another site would still be cached? If it does make a difference, would you release data on the popularity of various subsets?<p>(Also I hope you guys have a search box for that feature - icnfnt.com always made for a fun game of "spot these icons" for the whole office)
I wouldn't put the word "font" in the company name. In the near future SVG symbols may become the preferred way of shipping icons on the web.