3 ms·
The font is hard to read. It's a nice thoughtful project but seems to not have 'worked' as a functional font. But if I see it used on a blog somewhere now I'll
by veltas 4y ago
The font is hard to read. It's a nice thoughtful project but seems to not have 'worked' as a functional font. But if I see it used on a blog somewhere now I'll probably remember it and have a chuckle.
- TAKEMYMONEY 4y agoThat's known as "display" type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_typeface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_typeface
- cormacrelf 4y agoThere are thousands upon thousands of fonts that are also “hard to read”. It’s not because they are poorly executed. They’re just not all meant to be used as body text for a book. The function is clearly display text (ie one-off headlines, big type for designs like you might see in a magazine) and this one works in that role perfectly. Almost any amount of “hard to read” is tolerable when there’s only one or two lines of text set in it and it also happens to look beautiful.
- veltas 4y agoTolerable is a synonym of sufferable. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
- LeanderK 4y agoBeauty is not always about function and text is not always about content. Design and style can communicate a certain vibe or appeal to a certain social group, which might be more important than raw information.
- IshKebab 4y agoI don't think they intended for the tree to make an easy to read font. It looks like it "worked" very well as a cool art experiment to me.
- veltas 4y agoI think the actual pictures of the tree worked out quite well, just not the vectors.