Looks like you need to preconfigure a "priority device" in the app, and then waving over the router at any given time reserves more bandwidth for that device for 2 hours.
We are getting one here in Naperville, IL. They put out a pretty decent video showing how it will work and what it will look like when they are all done.
There were three posts with the same news in the "new" section with appropriate headlines all before this post. I think it is more a failing on those up-voting the most catchy headline.
I'm not sure if it does or not. I did the same thing. Since the applications were so different, I figured I would fill out the general one on their website in addition to the one linked to from within the chrome dev build (I used the same Google account for both applications). I got my Cr-48 this morning, so it must not have counted against me too much.
Mine just showed up while reading this post! I didn't get any confirmation email. I applied using the prompt on the "new page" tab (running dev channel build) during the live OS launch. It came in a UPS truck 9:40am CST. Sweet!
My wife works for a large company that is in a similar situation. They are not a member of the BBB (thus not accredited) and there is one complaint on the BBB that was filed 3 years ago. This single complaint gives them a D- rating. A newly formed competitor of theirs, less than 2 years old, became a member of the BBB from the get go and is heavily promoting the fact that they have an A+ and the company my wife works for doesn't. The BBB wants approx $16,000 for them to become accredited. Unless they pay, they can't increase their rating to anything decent, even if they work with the BBB to resolve that single complaint from 3 years ago. It's pretty bogus.
You could also give my Hacker News OnePage extension for Chrome a try (It's also a greasemonkey script for Firefox). It's what I use everyday and I like it, someone else might too :)
http://tdupree.com/extensions/
I thoroughly enjoyed the Foundation Series about a year ago and since then have been reading many of the books found in Asimov's Foundation Universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series#List_of_books...). Right now I am reading "The Robots of Dawn", the third book in Asimov's Robot Series. I have gone in a kind of a strange order, first reading The Complete Robot, then the Foundation Series, the Empire Series, and now the Robot Series. I have enjoyed them all, I like Asimov's style. I also enjoyed Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card and will be reading the next book in the series "Speaker for the Dead" soon.
Right on :) I've been tasked lately with a lot of "this needs to look the same for everyone on every platform" pixel perfect sort of stuff, so I have had to deal with getting everything the same and haven't had a lot of leeway. If you have the opportunity to give that 30% fantastic typography, and the other 70% still has a great experience, I'm definitely cool with that.
You are certainly right about that. I should have added more context to what I was thinking when I wrote that.
I was thinking more along the lines of having some non standard font on your computer that would differ greatly from a common web-font, specifying that as the top choice in a font stack, and then designing your site using that font. Which I was thinking was essentially the goal of the OP.
I think your font stack example isn't quite as extreme as I was thinking in my head. Even still, your example has two sans-serif fonts that may/may not be on a users computer, with your fall back choices then being serifed fonts. Already, that font stack is setting your site up to present some very different designs to various visitors. That font stack would fare better if it was something like font-family: "Adobe Myriad Pro", Myriad, Lucida Sans Unicode, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;
If you are going to pick a non-standard font to use without font embedding, then your fallbacks should be web-safe fonts that are similar in design and in rendering size. Exotic Font Y at 16px can look much different from web-safe Font Z at 16px.
So, if a very small percentage of your users will have an exotic font installed that you want to use, and you aren't embedding that font for others to use, then you are setting yourself up for design/rendering problems for all of the people who have to use the fallback. It just ends up looking goofy and unprofessional, as well as being a bear to get to render nicely for both varying font styles in a "pixel perfect" design. Font stacks should be about trying to get the same experience across multiple platforms and browsers, not 30% get the best experience and 70% get a crummy degraded experience.
Not sure why your comment got killed, but you're welcome! I had been looking into using @font-face for a while but didn't get the chance until just recently. It's kind of a moving target right now so I'm happy to pass on what I have picked up in trying it out. I'm using Museo Sans (http://www.josbuivenga.demon.nl/museosans.html) right now for a site and its going pretty well. That font seems to render decently across various browsers/OS.
You don't have to use a service like Typekit to use a pretty webfont. The advantage Typekit has is that it gives you access to a lot of font choices to use (which you wouldn't otherwise have access to) and hosts/serves up the fonts for you.
Sites not using Typekit are most likely just using their own @font-face solution and hosting the fonts on their own server (which can also be a faster solution than loading in 3rd party font solutions).
Never use fonts and just hope a user might have it. It's not too hard to roll your own solution for serving up pretty fonts using @font-face. You will need to read up on it to learn the ins and outs, and what sort of goofy idiosyncrasies exits that you need to deal with.
I would recommend using the @font-face generator from fontsquirrel.com (http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fontface/generator). This helps you take a font you want to use and prepare it for the web, creating all the different font file types, as well as creating the css you need to use to embed the font for use.
When you use the font, be sure to use it as part of a font-family, so that you can plan what fonts to use as a fallback in case your @font-face declarations don't work out.
Understand that your font will be rendered differently between various browsers and operating systems. Sometimes using a css declaration like text-shadow (text-shadow: #FFF 0px 0px 1px;), and matching the text-shadow color to the background color the text is on, can help smooth out jaggies on the rendered font (works well for webkit browsers), YMMV. Definitely check out how your font looks in all the major browsers, as well as different OS platforms. For instance, I have found Windows XP to render some @font-face fonts much worse than say Windows 7.
Just know that things aren't quite perfect yet with @font-face, so think long and hard about using it in a production environment, and really test all platforms, browsers, etc to see how it looks. Understand how your choice to use a custom font might hurt readability for large blocks of small-sized text (like a blog post) because of rendering issues. Also, Remember to use custom fonts responsibly, you really shouldn't need more than 1 (2 max) custom fonts on a page. Some people get a little carried away.
Some free fonts you can use online. NOTE: Always check the font license to see if you are allowed to use it on your site. If you plan to make a profit on your site, always check to see if the font can be used commercially!:
Nicely done! It would be nice if you would allow the user to fullscreen the videos. I think adding "allowFullScreen: true" to your params object for your js embed would add this functionality.
Don't forget "and listening to your Uservoice feedback to develop Spreadable". How could that possibly be listed as a benefit for chargify users affected by this pricing change?