Whyyyyyyyy so many text-as-images D:
It's because they want the text to look good on Windows too. Windows does a horrible job of font rendering so this is a fix to the problem.
No wonder they didn't bother making the site responsive.
entire paragraphs as images. clickable links unstyled from static text. and substantial contrast issues (particularly on the Toxins page)
yep. sounds like Apple web design.
It looks as if they only use text for images when using the signature Apple font. Possibly it's a way to protect it's font from being taken and utilize by others. I know there is other similar fonts as well, but just a thought.
https://typekit.com/fonts/myriad-pro They could easily use web fonts
Apple use their own variation of Myriad Pro. They can either host it for everyone to use (which they won't) or use an image.
Typekit don't have it, and they wouldn't use typekit if it did.
Apple use their own variation of Myriad Pro
Ah, of course. I'd forgotten that but, now that I'm writing this, I don't know how I could have.
While you're right on the contrast issues, what's the problem with having text as images? It probably saves you (minimal) bandwidth (as the parts of the images covered by the text contain less image data), it displays well, and it saves developers a lot of time.
Certainly doesn't display better than web rendering. That body text is much crunchier than it needs to be.
The images are transparent PNGs so the underlying images are not "covered" by the text. More images, more HTTP requests, more bandwidth, more to download, less flexible, harder to maintain… there are myriad problems, if you'll pardon the pun :)
particularly on the Toxins page
You mean on the colored element dots? The weights could be a little beefier but I wouldn't call that a substantial contrast issue.
text on hero image.
Ah, on the PAGE, my bad.
I love that solar array photo up top. Makes me want to quit my job and become a photographer. Oh wait, I think about that every day anyway.
Edit: This was a duplicate comment from a DN error…
I think it's so weird that Apple videos don't go full-screen.
How big is your monitor? I'm sure apple's analytics tell a different story than what you would assume.
13-in MacBook Air. There's no option to expand the player and "Large" is 848 wide. I wouldn't call that large.
I'm sure apple's analytics tell a different story than what you would assume
What I mean is that Apple's site probably gets a ton of traffic from devices that don't have big viewports and that might have an influence on why their videos aren't that large.
Edit - just now realizing you were talking about full screen and not full width ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Apparently works in Safari :/
Is it ironic that the solar arrays are pointing away from the sun? or am I reading to much into this.
But dat lens flare…
Still glad to see that Apple is always thinking mobile first.