4 ms·
I found the last example pretty convincing: I did not recognise Chalkboard, and the first part seemed readable to me to the point I said myself "Well, Comic San
by lloeki 14y ago
I found the last example pretty convincing: I did not recognise Chalkboard, and the first part seemed readable to me to the point I said myself "Well, Comic Sans is not so bad finally"... and then the last line instantly jumped at me due to kerning and baseline. Comic Sans glyphs seem to each stand on their own, unable to keep themselves together to form a word. Chalkboard is far from perfect (see k-e kern) but it is way more readable, even for small text or stand-alone words.
The case against Comic Sans in undue context is due to the funny glyphs, while the case against Comic Sans vs other comic fonts is due not to the glyphs but to the whitespace around them.
- coldtea 14y ago>Comic Sans glyphs seem to each stand on their own, unable to keep themselves together to form a word. The case against Comic Sans in undue context is due to the funny glyphs, while the case against Comic Sans vs other comic fonts is due not to the glyphs but to the whitespace around them. This whitespace and keming problems though might add to the naive appeal of the font. Like, for example, bad perspective and distorted proportions make a drawing more child-like.
- lloeki 14y agoAbsolutely. This is most probably wanted in the second graphic example, where the lo-fi aspect and the collage of pictures from different sources would make any form of rigor look uncanny.
- SourPatch 14y ago> keming Is that a typographical pun?
- qu4z-2 14y agoI'm not sure if it's technically a pun, but it's definitely a typographical joke.