3 ms·
That's a lot of pages of marketing/designer BS for what is essentially a clone of Google's Roboto.
by NackerHughes 3y ago
That's a lot of pages of marketing/designer BS for what is essentially a clone of Google's Roboto.
- kalleboo 3y agoI was also thinking "that looks remarkably like Roboto" so I had to compare it. Here's Aptos (MS) vs Roboto (Google) vs San Francisco (Apple) vs Helvetica https://kalleboo.com/linked/aptos-roboto-sf-helvetica.png https://kalleboo.com/linked/aptos-roboto-sf-helvetica.png
- adzm 3y agoThe savings in total width by Aptos is very surprising
- tuatoru 3y agoAh! That'll be why I instantly preferred San Francisco, the widest typeface.
- _jyty 3y agoCompared side-by-side, Aptos looks rounder and less square, and it has more natural looking curves. The problem is that differences in fonts are kind of subtle when their goals are very similar. Both Roboto and Aptos seem like they're trying to be high x-height grotesque sans serif fonts. They're going to look similar to some other font, because there are so many in that category already. (However, the capitals of Aptos remind me more of Gill Sans than of Helvetica, so I guess it's not strictly grotesque.)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- canucker2016 3y agoCapital Q looks similar to capital O - like an O with large dust speck on your monitor. Since Q isn't common, I guess the chances for confusion are also rare. Lowercase g looks weird since other letters with circular strokes have a lower baseline (bcdeopq).