4 ms·
Here is an image from the article: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/fBNygQoshN-VrK1f_Dxwy5bjTkaAgcFk6pcUts-9_R5Uhh3nmnrxVUX2JgOKKQ0ATgx8rIi6ggxiMBsCPiwZlrbPL6N
by petters 4y ago
Here is an image from the article: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/fBNygQoshN-VrK1f_Dxwy5bjTkaAgcFk6pcUts-9_R5Uhh3nmnrxVUX2JgOKKQ0ATgx8rIi6ggxiMBsCPiwZlrbPL6Nt9-gNuJ2jmz5_KU6VlH-MQg=w1064-v0 https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/fBNygQoshN-VrK1f_Dxwy5bjTk...
Left is old, right is the new design. Yes, it maybe looks "cleaner", but now it is virtually impossible to distinguish the different levels of headings.
> Left: The original Material Design type ramp using Roboto. Right: The same ramp made simple and smoother with Roboto Flex’s regular weight with automatic optical size variations.
From what I know of typography, you want the different levels to be much more different than that.
- BHSPitMonkey 4y agoThe typeface itself doesn't dictate how you style the different heading levels in your document/stylesheet. Particularly with such a parametrized font like this one, there are many opportunities to creatively differentiate the treatments (and the smoother ramp makes that easier to do).
- petters 4y agoYes that is right, I was commenting on the particular choice in the article.
- davelab6 4y agoThe ramp isn't meant to be different weights. The left is the original Material Design 1 ramp that uses tracking and static font weight tweaks to try to approximate an even color. The right is an actual even color.