My manager tells me not to use icon fonts on our websites, as it is another http request plus the extra kBs to download. Also because I would have to use content before
for the font (I can't change the html), he prefers background images so it works in IE7.
Personally I love the little things, so nice and crisp and resizeable!
I get it if we only use a couple of icons on a website but if I would use, say 5 icons on a site - what do you guys think? Is it worth using an icon font or is he right thinking that it is not?
I am just a sucker for anything new and exciting, and this year it is the retina display.
Using icon fonts will be more and more relevant as more high resolution/density displays become available.
A 16×16px
icon can look horrible on a high density display (>300ppi). It may either display incredibly small or unsharp due to automatic scaling. A 1em
font icon on the other hand will render correctly and sharply regardless of screen density.
It of course all boils down to your
For now sprites are the way to go.
Icon fonts have a different problem as well. All icons are single colour. There's no font standard as of yet to have multi-colour capability. And it likely won't be. At least not for fonts. There are possibilities of doing multi-colour using SVG fonts which isn't a font standard/format per se but can be font container and used as a font delivery mechanism in your browser. Doing multi-colour icons as SVG fonts makes it possible to have colourful scalable icons (thanks to @Joey).
Vectorised icon images would better suit full colour resizeable icons.
Your boss' argument about additional request are simply false. It doesn't really matter whether your icons are part of a file or (in best case) part of a sprite image.
Both yield an HTTP request to fetch the resource. File size heavily depends on complexity and format but it may be that sprite image will be smaller. But having a few kilo larger font file doesn't really make much difference. They both get cached on the client afterwards.