4 ms·

> Calibri is already dated, it hasn’t aged too well. I think it looks great. Maybe I'm dated! It's certainly a lot better than Arial, which proceeded it, and I

> Calibri is already dated, it hasn’t aged too well. I think it looks great. Maybe I'm dated! It's certainly a lot better than Arial, which proceeded it, and I don't commonly come across something that's so much better that I wished I wasn't using Calibri. Did you have something specific in mind? The primary serif font, Cambria, is fine but I much prefer Palatino (which was originally released more than 70 years ago so if you feel that fonts "age" then you certainly won't like that one!)

ComputerGuru 5y ago
I love Palatino, Garamond, and other timeless fonts. I just don’t think Calibri is timeless at all. Calibri actually wasn’t preceded by Arial; it was a replacement for Times New Roman, which was the previous default font in Microsoft Word. (They made the switch from Serif to Sans Serif.) Arial - apart from being the default font in Notepad and WordPad - was never really part of the Windows aesthetic. The new Windows font is Segoe UI (which I think has only improved with age) replaced MS Sans Serif, which was an altered version of Tahoma (introduced with Windows 95). If you use HN on Windows and are into fonts, I did a write up on two iconic fonts that are actually just one: https://neosmart.net/blog/2017/tahoma-vs-verdana/ https://neosmart.net/blog/2017/tahoma-vs-verdana/ For my personal ”brand”, I was using Publico Text for a very long time, but now it seems to be everywhere so that’s a bit of a bummer :)
- quietbritishjim 5y ago
  I suppose it depends on how you look at it. It used to be that the two main fonts were Arial and Times New Roman (and Courier New), then they switched to Calibri and Cambria (and Consolas). At the same time, as you say, they switched Word's default from serif to sans serif (because sans serif are better for on-screen reading, and the assumption about how documents would be read had changed). I'm sure we can agree on all those facts. Whether Calibri is a replacement for Arial or Times New Roman is just a matter of what we each mean by the word "replacment" and is not interesting. I think Calibri looks extremely readable on screen (at least on Windows with ClearType, which is what it was designed for). At the end of the day it's a matter of opinion. Your article on Tahoma and Verdana was very interesting! To veer a little further off topic: I was under the impression that those fonts, or at least Verdana, was primary designed for great readibility for very short text labels in dialogue boxes, so it does make me wince when I see them used for long documents, especially printed ones.
  - ComputerGuru 5y ago
    Thanks, and yes, we’re in agreement. Have a look at Sitka [1], it’s flown completely under the radar. It’s specifically designed for on-screen readability and especially in longer texts with some studies done to boost comprehension (some tiny amount, I’m sure) as compared to Calibri and others. We’re using that for our school’s memos and letters to students and parents. I personally find it a nicer in-box alternative to Calibri, which just looks off to me. [1]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/font-list/sitka https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/font-list/sitka
agumonkey 5y ago
I still like Calibri too. :)

ComputerGuru 5y ago

I love Palatino, Garamond, and other timeless fonts. I just don’t think Calibri is timeless at all. Calibri actually wasn’t preceded by Arial; it was a replacement for Times New Roman, which was the previous default font in Microsoft Word. (They made the switch from Serif to Sans Serif.) Arial - apart from being the default font in Notepad and WordPad - was never really part of the Windows aesthetic. The new Windows font is Segoe UI (which I think has only improved with age) replaced MS Sans Serif, which was an altered version of Tahoma (introduced with Windows 95). If you use HN on Windows and are into fonts, I did a write up on two iconic fonts that are actually just one: https://neosmart.net/blog/2017/tahoma-vs-verdana/ https://neosmart.net/blog/2017/tahoma-vs-verdana/ For my personal ”brand”, I was using Publico Text for a very long time, but now it seems to be everywhere so that’s a bit of a bummer :)

quietbritishjim 5y ago
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. It used to be that the two main fonts were Arial and Times New Roman (and Courier New), then they switched to Calibri and Cambria (and Consolas). At the same time, as you say, they switched Word's default from serif to sans serif (because sans serif are better for on-screen reading, and the assumption about how documents would be read had changed). I'm sure we can agree on all those facts. Whether Calibri is a replacement for Arial or Times New Roman is just a matter of what we each mean by the word "replacment" and is not interesting. I think Calibri looks extremely readable on screen (at least on Windows with ClearType, which is what it was designed for). At the end of the day it's a matter of opinion. Your article on Tahoma and Verdana was very interesting! To veer a little further off topic: I was under the impression that those fonts, or at least Verdana, was primary designed for great readibility for very short text labels in dialogue boxes, so it does make me wince when I see them used for long documents, especially printed ones.
- ComputerGuru 5y ago
  Thanks, and yes, we’re in agreement. Have a look at Sitka [1], it’s flown completely under the radar. It’s specifically designed for on-screen readability and especially in longer texts with some studies done to boost comprehension (some tiny amount, I’m sure) as compared to Calibri and others. We’re using that for our school’s memos and letters to students and parents. I personally find it a nicer in-box alternative to Calibri, which just looks off to me. [1]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/font-list/sitka https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/font-list/sitka

agumonkey 5y ago

I still like Calibri too. :)