4 ms·

Why? I really liked (and still like) the one they used up until now [1]. It looked fancy, it was _really_ distinctive, and it had a great readable font for devi

Why? I really liked (and still like) the one they used up until now [1]. It looked fancy, it was _really_ distinctive, and it had a great readable font for devices (e.g. screenshot [2]). What more do you need from a typeface? P.S. Doesn't this new typeface somehow remind you of Windows Phone 7's one? [1] http://spiekermann.com/en/nokia-sans-character/ http://spiekermann.com/en/nokia-sans-character/ [2] http://www.flickr.com/photos/21709201@N00/4263893860/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/21709201@N00/4263893860/

tptacek 16y ago
I'm no expert, but: * Spiekermann's face is distinctive, but also dated; Spiekermann himself draws a comparison to Rotis in the PDF spec for the face. * The face is complicated. Look towards the back of spec book for whole pages set in it. It draws a bit of attention to itself. * In the same vein: it's complicated enough to require a serif and "wide" variation to make it work in all the settings Nokia needs type. Don't underestimate how annoying that may have been for people working at Nokia. One company I worked with ditched an identity that used Mrs. Eaves and Futura (which looked awesome, I thought) because no normal person could make a document look good in it. The new face is all these things in reverse: * It's trendy (yeah, to the point of being boring) * It's simple * It's all-purpose And sure, at the end of the day, maybe they just wanted to refresh for the hell of it. Also: remember that the cost to re-do all their docs in a new visual style will probably dwarf the cost of getting a face commissioned. If they were going to refresh the identity anyways (that's just something companies do once or twice every decade), and the cost of a Dalton Maag typeface is a tiny part of that, why not?
- moondowner 16y ago
  All arguments valid, but I still kinda like the old typeface more. It's true that it has too many variations, but probably the new one will have as well. I doubt that only 3-4 variations will exist, there'll be more - for devices, for logos, etc... A refresh of the identity is a must every once in a while, it's the only explanation I see why the old one should be changed ;), but I doubt that their old docs will be redone in the new corporate branding, only the currently used will be redone and the new docs will use it.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Just to be clear: the original face appeared to have multiple variations required within a single system; you were expected to know when to use the serif (!) face, and when you needed to use the wide sans (because the normal sans face has lots of fine detail that doesn't work in adverse environments). It wasn't just that they had "display type" and "copy"; users of the Spiekermann face might have needed to know a fair bit of typography to make things look good in it. It was intrinsically complicated, beyond the complexity of Nokia's needs.

tptacek 16y ago

I'm no expert, but: * Spiekermann's face is distinctive, but also dated; Spiekermann himself draws a comparison to Rotis in the PDF spec for the face. * The face is complicated. Look towards the back of spec book for whole pages set in it. It draws a bit of attention to itself. * In the same vein: it's complicated enough to require a serif and "wide" variation to make it work in all the settings Nokia needs type. Don't underestimate how annoying that may have been for people working at Nokia. One company I worked with ditched an identity that used Mrs. Eaves and Futura (which looked awesome, I thought) because no normal person could make a document look good in it. The new face is all these things in reverse: * It's trendy (yeah, to the point of being boring) * It's simple * It's all-purpose And sure, at the end of the day, maybe they just wanted to refresh for the hell of it. Also: remember that the cost to re-do all their docs in a new visual style will probably dwarf the cost of getting a face commissioned. If they were going to refresh the identity anyways (that's just something companies do once or twice every decade), and the cost of a Dalton Maag typeface is a tiny part of that, why not?

moondowner 16y ago
All arguments valid, but I still kinda like the old typeface more. It's true that it has too many variations, but probably the new one will have as well. I doubt that only 3-4 variations will exist, there'll be more - for devices, for logos, etc... A refresh of the identity is a must every once in a while, it's the only explanation I see why the old one should be changed ;), but I doubt that their old docs will be redone in the new corporate branding, only the currently used will be redone and the new docs will use it.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Just to be clear: the original face appeared to have multiple variations required within a single system; you were expected to know when to use the serif (!) face, and when you needed to use the wide sans (because the normal sans face has lots of fine detail that doesn't work in adverse environments). It wasn't just that they had "display type" and "copy"; users of the Spiekermann face might have needed to know a fair bit of typography to make things look good in it. It was intrinsically complicated, beyond the complexity of Nokia's needs.