4 ms·

https://nebulasans.com/img/handgloves.png https://nebulasans.com/img/handgloves.png

• stared 2y ago
  Is there some online tool for comparing fonts that way?
• tobr 2y ago
  I saw that. Here's a quick similar comparison between Nebula Sans and Source Sans I just whipped up: https://imgur.com/JPwgYkj https://imgur.com/JPwgYkj
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • huhtenberg 2y ago
    It's more about overall look and feel, which in large part comes from the glyph proportions (the x-height), spacing and weights - https://i.imgur.com/mygqn3H.png https://i.imgur.com/mygqn3H.png Glyph proportions between Whitney and Nebula are almost identical. As are their weights. Source Sans is substantially heavier and more dense looking. While individual glyphs may be closer between Nebula and Source Sans, but the overall feel of Nebula is that of Whitney.
    • jibal 2y ago
      Failed rebuttal of tobr's clearly true statement. Your own png refutes your position.
  • concerndc1tizen 2y ago
    So, it's worse than Source Sans because it removed the differentiation between a lowercase L and an uppercase i. I'd rather use Source Sans then.
    • creata 2y ago
      Tangentially, there are two versions of Source Sans worth considering afaik: * the latest OTF * the Source Sans 2.020 TTF, which is the last version (at least, the last version released in the GitHub repository[0]) that has manual hinting [0]: https://github.com/adobe-fonts/source-sans/releases https://github.com/adobe-fonts/source-sans/releases
• delta_p_delta_x 2y ago
  The two typefaces couldn't look more different. Look at the stroke cuts on the ascenders of the 'd', 'l', the stroke cuts on the 'a', 'e', and 's'.
• notpushkin 2y ago
  I’m wondering why they’ve added the slanted top on ‘t’, but not the other letters: https://nebula.tv/videos/nebula-sans?t=363 https://nebula.tv/videos/nebula-sans?t=363
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]