4 ms·

/rant Substack has literally one job: to display written information on a webpage and provide good typography for writers. The most commonly used font - "Spectr

/rant Substack has literally one job: to display written information on a webpage and provide good typography for writers. The most commonly used font - "Spectral" is a complete mess. Kerning is off, letter spacing is too much and word spacing is too little. If someone is reading this at Substack, please for the love of god consult a professional typographer and ask them for a recommendation. If you can't then just use one of the many Google Fonts such as Source Serif Pro. Here is a comparison of how bad it is: Original, Spectral: https://i.imgur.com/SBS8iQG.png https://i.imgur.com/SBS8iQG.png Source Serif Pro: https://i.imgur.com/AM8KSUC.png https://i.imgur.com/AM8KSUC.png

dcl 6y ago
Wow, you're not wrong.
enjoyyourlife 6y ago
If you are using an ad blocker, you can add the following rules to change the font: substack.com##body:style(font-family: Arial !important)
dartharva 6y ago
It doesn't seem that bad in a dark theme
DetroitThrow 6y ago
I can't unsee these sins now
awestroke 6y ago
Spectral might be bad, but I'd not replace it with a serif font.
manigandham 6y ago
This is classic form over function. It's been scientifically measured that sans-serif fonts are better for screens with serif best for printed text. Something like Helvetica with good spacing and high contrast is the best for reading online.
- jacobolus 6y ago
  Helvetica is designed for posters and logos. It is a poor typeface to choose for body copy, especially on screens.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  This isn’t to dispute serif vs sans-serif. I’m pointing the letter spacing. Doesn’t matter if it’s serif or sans-serif. If the fitting is bad, it’s going to be difficult to read. The vision system recognizes word shapes and it’s sensitive to how much space is between letters (kerning is a bit different, usually pairs of glyphs). Orthogonally, can you cite the scientific source that claims sans serif is better on displays? Curious when it was published. I wonder if it still applies to retina displays and hidpi screens.
- messe 6y ago
  > It's been scientifically measured that sans-serif fonts are better for screens with serif best for printed text. Were any of those studies conducted after high DPI displays became commonplace? Other than backlighting, I can't think of much that would distinguish a serif font on a high DPI display from one in print.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Not every screen is high-DPI, and device modality matters too. Being able to touch and trace with your fingers on a smartphone with flexible angles is very different than scrolling text on a monitor. True legibility needs to take into account all of those factors.
Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
Source Serif Pro is truly one of the most beautiful modern web fonts.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  I very much agree. It’s exceptional in so many ways.
mbar84 6y ago
In terms of priorities, is it fair to say that the main issue here is word spacing? I don't see much difference with the kerning to be honest. For letter spacing, is there any level at which it would be too little?

dcl 6y ago

Wow, you're not wrong.

enjoyyourlife 6y ago

If you are using an ad blocker, you can add the following rules to change the font: substack.com##body:style(font-family: Arial !important)

dartharva 6y ago

It doesn't seem that bad in a dark theme

DetroitThrow 6y ago

I can't unsee these sins now

awestroke 6y ago

Spectral might be bad, but I'd not replace it with a serif font.

manigandham 6y ago

This is classic form over function. It's been scientifically measured that sans-serif fonts are better for screens with serif best for printed text. Something like Helvetica with good spacing and high contrast is the best for reading online.

jacobolus 6y ago
Helvetica is designed for posters and logos. It is a poor typeface to choose for body copy, especially on screens.
systemvoltage 6y ago
This isn’t to dispute serif vs sans-serif. I’m pointing the letter spacing. Doesn’t matter if it’s serif or sans-serif. If the fitting is bad, it’s going to be difficult to read. The vision system recognizes word shapes and it’s sensitive to how much space is between letters (kerning is a bit different, usually pairs of glyphs). Orthogonally, can you cite the scientific source that claims sans serif is better on displays? Curious when it was published. I wonder if it still applies to retina displays and hidpi screens.
messe 6y ago
> It's been scientifically measured that sans-serif fonts are better for screens with serif best for printed text. Were any of those studies conducted after high DPI displays became commonplace? Other than backlighting, I can't think of much that would distinguish a serif font on a high DPI display from one in print.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Not every screen is high-DPI, and device modality matters too. Being able to touch and trace with your fingers on a smartphone with flexible angles is very different than scrolling text on a monitor. True legibility needs to take into account all of those factors.

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago

Source Serif Pro is truly one of the most beautiful modern web fonts.

systemvoltage 6y ago
I very much agree. It’s exceptional in so many ways.

mbar84 6y ago

In terms of priorities, is it fair to say that the main issue here is word spacing? I don't see much difference with the kerning to be honest. For letter spacing, is there any level at which it would be too little?