1

Has anyone used sIFR in a SharePoint site? Is there any reason why they wouldn't play nice? I don't see why there would be but a sub-contractor is pushing hard for flat images instead of sIFR.

Jeff
  • 13,943
  • 11
  • 55
  • 103
  • Can't help with the answer but have to ask - why? (why using sIFR I mean) – Ryan Feb 10 '11 at 17:46
  • If we use images to display non-websafe fonts, then every time we add a new page or want to change the text, we need to create the image, upload the image and set it on the page. When you start adding multiple people into the mix like a designer, then the level of effort so make a "simple" change grows dramatically. Using sIFR to render a non-websafe font requires some overhead but then the non-technical content authors can edit these fields directly and quickly without any assistance. These edits can go through the normal workflow and process of going live. – Jeff Feb 10 '11 at 18:41
  • My Why question would be then if design is so important to you that you need to use non-websafe fonts with the overhead of static images and/or sIFR or some other solution then why would you be using the notoriously hard to 'skin' SharePoint as a CMS? - not having a pop, just curious – Ryan Feb 10 '11 at 18:46
  • very good question :) it wasn't my choice nor would it have been if they asked me. but no one did and the client picked SharePoint. their brand font is Gotham and they specifically asked us to make this site inline with their branding guidelines. this means using gotham. – Jeff Feb 10 '11 at 18:55
  • 1
    I've heard of a project (non SharePoint) successfully doing a similar thing but creating the images on the fly using http://www.libgd.org/Main_Page which would get around the maint issue and sIFR flash overload problems, but these sorts of duct tape things make me want to reach out and slap the nearest graphic designer upside the head ;) good luck! – Ryan Feb 10 '11 at 20:26

1 Answers1

1

I've not used it, but there's no reason why it wouldn't work. Just think of SharePoint as a big ASP.NET app on steroids. Thus, it should work.

That said, I'd agree with Ryan. There are better (simpler) CMSes out there - though SharePoint gives you a lot more other stuff...

Andy Burns
  • 917
  • 4
  • 8
  • marked as answered by default :) thanks. i had the same impression though my SharePoint "expert" sub-contractor is giving me grief. maybe they are just one of those companies that deals only with SharePoint and never bothers looking at what is outside. – Jeff Feb 16 '11 at 14:17