4 ms·

I find it quite surprising that the author is so passionate about typefaces, but serves his own blog in Verdana. Good thing it is not called JaringJireJall.net

I find it quite surprising that the author is so passionate about typefaces, but serves his own blog in Verdana. Good thing it is not called JaringJireJall.net [1] That being said, I really think the days of sans fonts are close to over. 10 years from now, we will all be reading on 300 dpi screens and taste in typography will return to being the dominate feature of design. I can't wait until I can read the Economist online in the correct typeface. I can walk down an airplane isle and recognize that font in less than a second. The New Yorker also uses a font that seems to be unique. The Atlantic needs a custom typeface. I am so excited that high DPI screens are going to be the norm. The web design world as we know it today is about shitty flourishing with artwork. 10 years from now it will be about designing beautiful glyphs that represent the brand. [1] J is particularly gross in Verdana.

jmduke 14y ago
I'm interested in this. As someone who doesn't pay that much attention to typography (beyond the obvious 'Papyrus is bad' stuff) what makes individual typefaces preferable over a standard typeface for all similarly structured content? (Besides branding, that is.)
- sbierwagen 14y ago
  It's pure marketing. There's no objective, measurable difference.
  - LoganCale 14y ago
    Yes there is. Certain typefaces are objectively easier to read than others, and some work better for certain content than others. Some are best for body text, some are best for headlines, etc. Some are optimized for low resolution screens, some for print (and as such work well on high resolution screens).
    - delackner 14y ago
      A great recent example that appeared on HN was the typeface designed for road signs, which the designers then put through Germany(?)'s test suite for legibility at distance in various road conditions and determined the new font was objectively legible at greater distance than all previous standard road-sign fonts with which it was compared. [By request, I found the original article: http://ilovetypography.com/2012/04/19/the-design-of-a-signage-typeface/ http://ilovetypography.com/2012/04/19/the-design-of-a-signag... ]
      - tsahyt 14y ago
        Do you happen to have the link to that? Must have missed that and I'd like to read it.
        delackner 14y ago
        http://ilovetypography.com/2012/04/19/the-design-of-a-signage-typeface/ http://ilovetypography.com/2012/04/19/the-design-of-a-signag...
  - chj 14y ago
    I remember reading a post several days ago, mentioning that particular font face could help a paper score higher.
    - tathagata 14y ago
      This is from very long back. In school, I once passed an exam on grace marks given because of my graceful handwriting (this was writing in the 'Devanagari' script, which even naturally allows for more calligraphy than the Roman script).
- niels_olson 14y ago
  Edward Tufte's forum has some good discussions on type This one is short http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0000z0 http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0... but see the collection of additional threads at the bottom of that thread.* Also, Bringhurst: http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Typographic-Style-Robert-Bringhurst/dp/0881791326 http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Typographic-Style-Robert-Brin... ------------------ *I like the "local masters" concept Tufte has (full disclosure, I helped prototype it), and Wikipedia does something similar.
- jcampbell1 14y ago
  Don't worry about it too much. Most people don't care. I am the kind of guy that walks into the Google offices and immediately thinks "What the fuck is this place, a daycare center?" Most people disagree, and think the Google decor is wonderful. My opinion is likely not mainstream.
- printer 14y ago
  Every font is designed for a purpose. Serif fonts are designed to help the brain recognize the different letters. Comic Sans was designed to be used informal. Helvetica was designed to be used in signage. Verdana was designed to be readable from (72dpi) computer screens. And so on. So as screen resolutions increase a serif font can help the brain to recognize small letters increasing readability.
  - podperson 14y ago
    Serif fonts are designed to emulate Roman inscriptions, which had serifs to help water drain out of them without wearing them out (and thus reducing maintenance costs). The brain stuff is at best speculative and not backed by any data (and in any event is a post hoc rationalization). In general, readability tests (per the original article) have produced equivocal results which seem to show mainly that people prefer the fonts they grew up with.
colmvp 14y ago
"sans fonts are close to over" I'm curious as to why you believe this. Some of the most versatile fonts are sans-serif, i.e. Helvetica, Gotham, DIN, Gill Sans, Futura, and Franklin Gothic.
- mark-r 14y ago
  Serif fonts have been under-represented for years, because our displays just aren't good enough to do them justice. When the pendulum swings, it always swings too far - look for serif fonts to become the next big thing. Personally I think this prediction is a little premature because the retina displays aren't widespread yet. I've got my eye on Open Sans for the near future.
- jcampbell1 14y ago
  You are right, I don't believe that. I was exaggerating, and mostly thinking about how impossible it is to make a serif typeface that works on low dpi displays. TNR is the only serif face that is well hinted in my opinion. There are much better options with sans typefaces, which often look nice on low dpi displays. My point was mainly that we are currently choosing among sans and TNR, rather than among all typefaces.
  - colmvp 14y ago
    That's true but I've always thought of it because serif generally feels warm and historic, while sans-serif can often feel modern and emotionally detached. For quite a number of European and American fashion sites, most use sans-serif because they want to appear bold, but emotionally subdued from the user, letting the photos of the products and models do more of the talking.
lloeki 14y ago
Possibly because at 11px Verdana renders nicely. I guess at the time he came up with the design, there was not really an alternative to use CoreFonts, and this was one of the types that rendered fine at that size. FWIW headings are in Gill at 17px, and I don't find the balance unpleasant.
panacea 14y ago
Un-anti-aliased (aliased?) Verdana at a certain size (11 or 12 point? Can't recall) was the very best pixellated optimised font for the web when Gruber designed his blog. He hasn't redesigned since.
- reedlaw 14y ago
  His blog is nearly unreadable on my non-retina display. I can only imagine how small the font looks on a Macbook Pro.
  - panacea 14y ago
    ⌘+
  - shellehs 14y ago
    I use readability to convert the content to be readable on my devices(computer, kindle, mobile phone...) .
  - iaskwhy 14y ago
    You can change it via a link at the bottom to http://daringfireball.net/preferences/ http://daringfireball.net/preferences/
pazimzadeh 14y ago
There is nothing wrong with Verdana if used properly. Verdana was designed specifically for digital displays at small sizes, which is how it is used on daringfireball. And HN, actually.
angrycoder 14y ago
You mean like the site you are looking at right now? body {font-family:Verdana; font-size:10pt; color:#828282;} td {font-family:Verdana; font-size:10pt; color:#828282;}
- saurik 14y ago
  Neither this site nor its operator claim to be passionate about typefaces.
Steko 14y ago
You sure told him. May sound funny coming from a typography-obsessive whose website has used Verdana as the text face for its entire nine-year existence, but I just don’t care much for Verdana for anything other than use on relatively low-resolution displays at small sizes. (E.g. Verdana’s uppercase I and J. Ugh.) Interesting expansion of the two families, though. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/11/16/georgia-verdana http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/11/16/georgia-verdana Ikea Switches From Futura to Verdana Horrible decision. Baffling, really. I have never seen Verdana look good in any way other than in small sizes on-screen. (Via Adam Lisagor.) http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/08/26/ikea-futura http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/08/26/ikea-futura
- podperson 14y ago
  I also find daringfireball's typeface to be too small to read comfortably on modern displays. (I understand picking Verdana back in 2002, but it's not so nice now.)
griffindy 14y ago
not to be too pedantic, but The New Yorker uses Caslon, which while gorgeous and second in my mind only to Garamond, is a rather old type face and is widely used because it is 1) very readable, and (possibly more importantly) 2) uses a lot less ink than other similar type faces
fumar 14y ago
I hope your right about the typographic future. This link argues that serifs are not more legible than sans serifs. http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/ http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-s...
podperson 14y ago
The New Yorker does indeed use two custom typefaces -- Irvin for headings, and a Caslon variation for body text. (Wikipedia says it's Adobe Caslon, but I seem to recall it having been a customized version, at least at some point in the past.) On the website, the New Yorker seems to be using Irvin for its headlines, but Times New Roman for body text.
crazygringo 14y ago
> I can't wait until I can read the Economist online in the correct typeface. It's possible, but with a lot of work. It's called EcoType. If you download a PDF of one of their "Special Reports" then you can use a font-extraction tool to generate a font file (possibly missing a few rare characters), then create a custom user style sheet for your browser that sets Economist.com body text to that typeface. Whether it's worth it is a whole other question. ;) Thankfully, the New Yorker just came out with their iPhone app which is typographically gorgeous.

jmduke 14y ago

I'm interested in this. As someone who doesn't pay that much attention to typography (beyond the obvious 'Papyrus is bad' stuff) what makes individual typefaces preferable over a standard typeface for all similarly structured content? (Besides branding, that is.)

sbierwagen 14y ago
It's pure marketing. There's no objective, measurable difference.
- LoganCale 14y ago
  Yes there is. Certain typefaces are objectively easier to read than others, and some work better for certain content than others. Some are best for body text, some are best for headlines, etc. Some are optimized for low resolution screens, some for print (and as such work well on high resolution screens).
  - delackner 14y ago
    A great recent example that appeared on HN was the typeface designed for road signs, which the designers then put through Germany(?)'s test suite for legibility at distance in various road conditions and determined the new font was objectively legible at greater distance than all previous standard road-sign fonts with which it was compared. [By request, I found the original article: http://ilovetypography.com/2012/04/19/the-design-of-a-signage-typeface/ http://ilovetypography.com/2012/04/19/the-design-of-a-signag... ]
    - tsahyt 14y ago
      Do you happen to have the link to that? Must have missed that and I'd like to read it.
      - delackner 14y ago
        http://ilovetypography.com/2012/04/19/the-design-of-a-signage-typeface/ http://ilovetypography.com/2012/04/19/the-design-of-a-signag...
- chj 14y ago
  I remember reading a post several days ago, mentioning that particular font face could help a paper score higher.
  - tathagata 14y ago
    This is from very long back. In school, I once passed an exam on grace marks given because of my graceful handwriting (this was writing in the 'Devanagari' script, which even naturally allows for more calligraphy than the Roman script).
niels_olson 14y ago
Edward Tufte's forum has some good discussions on type This one is short http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0000z0 http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0... but see the collection of additional threads at the bottom of that thread.* Also, Bringhurst: http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Typographic-Style-Robert-Bringhurst/dp/0881791326 http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Typographic-Style-Robert-Brin... ------------------ *I like the "local masters" concept Tufte has (full disclosure, I helped prototype it), and Wikipedia does something similar.
jcampbell1 14y ago
Don't worry about it too much. Most people don't care. I am the kind of guy that walks into the Google offices and immediately thinks "What the fuck is this place, a daycare center?" Most people disagree, and think the Google decor is wonderful. My opinion is likely not mainstream.
printer 14y ago
Every font is designed for a purpose. Serif fonts are designed to help the brain recognize the different letters. Comic Sans was designed to be used informal. Helvetica was designed to be used in signage. Verdana was designed to be readable from (72dpi) computer screens. And so on. So as screen resolutions increase a serif font can help the brain to recognize small letters increasing readability.
- podperson 14y ago
  Serif fonts are designed to emulate Roman inscriptions, which had serifs to help water drain out of them without wearing them out (and thus reducing maintenance costs). The brain stuff is at best speculative and not backed by any data (and in any event is a post hoc rationalization). In general, readability tests (per the original article) have produced equivocal results which seem to show mainly that people prefer the fonts they grew up with.

colmvp 14y ago

"sans fonts are close to over" I'm curious as to why you believe this. Some of the most versatile fonts are sans-serif, i.e. Helvetica, Gotham, DIN, Gill Sans, Futura, and Franklin Gothic.

mark-r 14y ago
Serif fonts have been under-represented for years, because our displays just aren't good enough to do them justice. When the pendulum swings, it always swings too far - look for serif fonts to become the next big thing. Personally I think this prediction is a little premature because the retina displays aren't widespread yet. I've got my eye on Open Sans for the near future.
jcampbell1 14y ago
You are right, I don't believe that. I was exaggerating, and mostly thinking about how impossible it is to make a serif typeface that works on low dpi displays. TNR is the only serif face that is well hinted in my opinion. There are much better options with sans typefaces, which often look nice on low dpi displays. My point was mainly that we are currently choosing among sans and TNR, rather than among all typefaces.
- colmvp 14y ago
  That's true but I've always thought of it because serif generally feels warm and historic, while sans-serif can often feel modern and emotionally detached. For quite a number of European and American fashion sites, most use sans-serif because they want to appear bold, but emotionally subdued from the user, letting the photos of the products and models do more of the talking.

lloeki 14y ago

Possibly because at 11px Verdana renders nicely. I guess at the time he came up with the design, there was not really an alternative to use CoreFonts, and this was one of the types that rendered fine at that size. FWIW headings are in Gill at 17px, and I don't find the balance unpleasant.

panacea 14y ago

Un-anti-aliased (aliased?) Verdana at a certain size (11 or 12 point? Can't recall) was the very best pixellated optimised font for the web when Gruber designed his blog. He hasn't redesigned since.

reedlaw 14y ago
His blog is nearly unreadable on my non-retina display. I can only imagine how small the font looks on a Macbook Pro.
- panacea 14y ago
  ⌘+
- shellehs 14y ago
  I use readability to convert the content to be readable on my devices(computer, kindle, mobile phone...) .
- iaskwhy 14y ago
  You can change it via a link at the bottom to http://daringfireball.net/preferences/ http://daringfireball.net/preferences/

pazimzadeh 14y ago

There is nothing wrong with Verdana if used properly. Verdana was designed specifically for digital displays at small sizes, which is how it is used on daringfireball. And HN, actually.

angrycoder 14y ago

You mean like the site you are looking at right now? body {font-family:Verdana; font-size:10pt; color:#828282;} td {font-family:Verdana; font-size:10pt; color:#828282;}

saurik 14y ago
Neither this site nor its operator claim to be passionate about typefaces.

Steko 14y ago

You sure told him. May sound funny coming from a typography-obsessive whose website has used Verdana as the text face for its entire nine-year existence, but I just don’t care much for Verdana for anything other than use on relatively low-resolution displays at small sizes. (E.g. Verdana’s uppercase I and J. Ugh.) Interesting expansion of the two families, though. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/11/16/georgia-verdana http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/11/16/georgia-verdana Ikea Switches From Futura to Verdana Horrible decision. Baffling, really. I have never seen Verdana look good in any way other than in small sizes on-screen. (Via Adam Lisagor.) http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/08/26/ikea-futura http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/08/26/ikea-futura

podperson 14y ago
I also find daringfireball's typeface to be too small to read comfortably on modern displays. (I understand picking Verdana back in 2002, but it's not so nice now.)

griffindy 14y ago

not to be too pedantic, but The New Yorker uses Caslon, which while gorgeous and second in my mind only to Garamond, is a rather old type face and is widely used because it is 1) very readable, and (possibly more importantly) 2) uses a lot less ink than other similar type faces

fumar 14y ago

I hope your right about the typographic future. This link argues that serifs are not more legible than sans serifs. http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/ http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-s...

podperson 14y ago

The New Yorker does indeed use two custom typefaces -- Irvin for headings, and a Caslon variation for body text. (Wikipedia says it's Adobe Caslon, but I seem to recall it having been a customized version, at least at some point in the past.) On the website, the New Yorker seems to be using Irvin for its headlines, but Times New Roman for body text.

crazygringo 14y ago

> I can't wait until I can read the Economist online in the correct typeface. It's possible, but with a lot of work. It's called EcoType. If you download a PDF of one of their "Special Reports" then you can use a font-extraction tool to generate a font file (possibly missing a few rare characters), then create a custom user style sheet for your browser that sets Economist.com body text to that typeface. Whether it's worth it is a whole other question. ;) Thankfully, the New Yorker just came out with their iPhone app which is typographically gorgeous.