>>Noticed that if you click on the link in IE then the URL is actually for a .woff format which should be OK in IE (pasting the link into a Chrome page gives the .woff2 version). Check the debugger to see which actually gets downloaded.
>>
>>And are you sure you're actually assigning the font? - example syntax here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/%40font-face
>
>I am not using the font-face approach. I am using the LINK approach. From what I have seen so far with other fonts, such as Raleway, this seems to work ok. Do you believe for some types of fonts, the font-face approach should be better? Or, would there be any specific font that would require that in order to work?
>
>Google site provides the syntax. But, maybe that syntax is only guaranteed to work with Chrome.
>
>The font as is seems to be ok. But, the bold thing is really ugly in IE and Firefox.

If you are using the link that you posted then you ARE using that approach, The link is to a stylesheet which contains the url for the font. Did you check the network calls in the debugger as suggested ?