Talk:Scalable Inman Flash Replacement

"sIFR is used on a variety of well-known web pages; GE, ABC News, Nike and Red Hat, to name but a few."

Maybe it's me, but none of them seem to be using sIFR - anymore. Maybe it's time for some new examples?

--Lennartgoosens (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Some one should say something about how the methods used by CoffeeCup effects the indexing by search engines. Also this methods look a bit obsolete to me as there is UTF-8 etc.

Simon 12:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently the home page of CuffeeCup states:

• From Wikipedia: "A high quality cross-browser, cross-platform typography solution for the masses."

And the old text of this article sated:

• sIFR is described by its creators as "a high quality cross-browser, cross-platform typography solution for the masses."^[1]

This sounds more like self-promotion.

Simon 12:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

CoffeeCup appears to be using this page as a way to gain credibility for their product, without actually linking to the official sIFR page or giving explicit credit. Sort of flakey, although the product provides value in that you don't need the Flash IDE (but there are free alternatives available).

--Mark Wubben 09:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any source for sIFR being ad-block incompatible? sIFR documentation claims it can handle it and my own tests show that it works fine with firefox adblockers. -- Anonymous 13:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.195.192 (talk)

If this is a proposed alternative, there needs to some reference of its accessibility. It seems to me that it cannot replace the accessibility of sIFR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.53.5 (talk • contribs)

It seems to me that the use of alt attributes would largely resolve the accessibility concerns of FLIR. Does the existing implementation not use ALT attributes? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I added External Links to both Cufón and Typekit

G. Robert Shiplett 21:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talk • contribs) 21:56, 8 May 2012

Thanks, and I have removed them as they aren't about the subject of this article. If you went to the Microsoft article, you wouldn't expect to find an external link to Apple's website? External links for those other items belong on their own articles (if they have one). It would be more appropriate to have a "See also" link to the other articles, so people can find out about those other options *on Wikipedia* initially. Please can you read WP:EXTLINKS for further info - no 13 of "links to avoid" is the most applicable if any. Halsteadk (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted a no more working link in the "External links section". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.182.88.10 (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)