3 ms·

We could argue for purely functional, utilitarian priorities. But it seems a large fraction of humanity is very susceptible to form over function. Pretending th

We could argue for purely functional, utilitarian priorities. But it seems a large fraction of humanity is very susceptible to form over function. Pretending that I think this is testable, I would wager that most people who "care" about fonts in the general population are driven by the same fashion mechanisms as in clothing and other product consumption. And I don't mean that they have to be aware they are bound like this... many are driven subconsciously by fashion concerns even when they construct other rationalization for their preferences. Humans are intensely social and can turn nearly any kind of visible behavior or marking into a social signal. A very small number might actually be concerned with actual usability/human factors of fonts, but most are in it for the tribal aspects of associating font usage with other "brand" or tribal identities. For the amateur producers, this can lead to cargo-cult emulation of the producers they admire. Even dissent here can fall into the same trap---consider how many times you've seen a LaTex document from a student who wants to be an author of a computer science paper, but doesn't really have anything to say (yet?)...

tptacek 3y ago
Don't get me wrong. As I said, I'm a font nerd. My old blog has fonts I paid actual money for, which was otherwise exchangeable for goods and services in the real world. I like fonts. I get why people like fonts. I just don't think they matter. Now, if Computer Modern was an important professional signal, and it was the case that Monotype owned its copyright and rapaciously charged for its use, that would matter quite a bit. But that's not the case; ironically, the one font we can think of that has professional implications is under an open license. There is a battery of commonly-used fonts (the Microsoft fonts, we might as well call them) that are professionally important. But they're also universally available; they argue against the idea that font licensing is all that meaningful, as well.

tptacek 3y ago

Don't get me wrong. As I said, I'm a font nerd. My old blog has fonts I paid actual money for, which was otherwise exchangeable for goods and services in the real world. I like fonts. I get why people like fonts. I just don't think they matter. Now, if Computer Modern was an important professional signal, and it was the case that Monotype owned its copyright and rapaciously charged for its use, that would matter quite a bit. But that's not the case; ironically, the one font we can think of that has professional implications is under an open license. There is a battery of commonly-used fonts (the Microsoft fonts, we might as well call them) that are professionally important. But they're also universally available; they argue against the idea that font licensing is all that meaningful, as well.