3 ms·

These days, Verdana is generally an indicator of either organisational decay or incompetence, especially when used in print, which it wasn’t designed for. It h

These days, Verdana is generally an indicator of either organisational decay or incompetence, especially when used in print, which it wasn’t designed for. It hasn’t been a default in tools for decades, so it suggests either the organization hasn’t been able to afford to refresh the design for 25 years or the designer is incompetent. Hate is a strong word, but Verdana is almost certainly the wrong font for your business branding in 2025.

simondotau 1y ago
Sometimes, something that seems like an "obviously terrible decision" to subject matter experts turns out to be inconsequential, or perhaps even good. Ask a corporate identity expert in 1998 if you should name your big important company "Google" and they'd vomit in your face. Of course it looks very different in hindsight. Contrary to your claim, approximately nobody with a professionally designed corporate identity used Verdana in a printed context like IKEA did. It was a "wrong" choice like Google was the "wrong" name for a search engine. It's a perfectly serviceable font, like Times New Roman. And that font was good enough for The Times of London, for goodness sakes.
- elevation 1y ago
  > approximately nobody with a professionally designed corporate identity used Verdana in a printed context like IKEA did Exactly my point. Verdana gives unprofessional vibes because a pro wouldn’t use it. In a Midwest town you’ll see a few sun faded signs, printed menus, and service vehicles emblazoned with Verdana. In every case, my assumption is that “the owner made our logo in PowerPoint in 1999 and won’t let anyone change it” or “the technician at the vehicle decal shop pick a font for us”. IKEA having used the font for a season isn’t enough to override the sense of neglect. If you’re designing print media for business, or a logo of all things, avoid Verdana.
  - simondotau 1y ago
    > Verdana gives unprofessional vibes because a pro wouldn’t use it. Exactly my point. The name "Google" gives unprofessional vibes because a brand identity pro would never approve that name. And because of those unprofessional vibes, nobody ever took Google seriously. In reality, font choice is a very surface level analysis. Ever since quality fonts became commoditised, it stopped being a significant signal of professionalism. A top designer could put Comic Sans next to Trajan and make it look like a million bucks; a bad designer could typeset in Gotham and still look like a high school student project. "Unprofessional font" is a dead meme.

simondotau 1y ago

Sometimes, something that seems like an "obviously terrible decision" to subject matter experts turns out to be inconsequential, or perhaps even good. Ask a corporate identity expert in 1998 if you should name your big important company "Google" and they'd vomit in your face. Of course it looks very different in hindsight. Contrary to your claim, approximately nobody with a professionally designed corporate identity used Verdana in a printed context like IKEA did. It was a "wrong" choice like Google was the "wrong" name for a search engine. It's a perfectly serviceable font, like Times New Roman. And that font was good enough for The Times of London, for goodness sakes.

elevation 1y ago
> approximately nobody with a professionally designed corporate identity used Verdana in a printed context like IKEA did Exactly my point. Verdana gives unprofessional vibes because a pro wouldn’t use it. In a Midwest town you’ll see a few sun faded signs, printed menus, and service vehicles emblazoned with Verdana. In every case, my assumption is that “the owner made our logo in PowerPoint in 1999 and won’t let anyone change it” or “the technician at the vehicle decal shop pick a font for us”. IKEA having used the font for a season isn’t enough to override the sense of neglect. If you’re designing print media for business, or a logo of all things, avoid Verdana.
- simondotau 1y ago
  > Verdana gives unprofessional vibes because a pro wouldn’t use it. Exactly my point. The name "Google" gives unprofessional vibes because a brand identity pro would never approve that name. And because of those unprofessional vibes, nobody ever took Google seriously. In reality, font choice is a very surface level analysis. Ever since quality fonts became commoditised, it stopped being a significant signal of professionalism. A top designer could put Comic Sans next to Trajan and make it look like a million bucks; a bad designer could typeset in Gotham and still look like a high school student project. "Unprofessional font" is a dead meme.