3 ms·

The problem is that fonts are used to signify tone. When I see Comic Sans, the tone I read the text in is "cartoon dog." Although this particular interpretatio

by klunger 12y ago

The problem is that fonts are used to signify tone. When I see Comic Sans, the tone I read the text in is "cartoon dog." Although this particular interpretation may be just me, I believe many people have similarly toned readings (it comes down to cultural interpretation of symbols...). So, it is jarring and inappropriate for many people to see Comic Sans, in certain contexts. There are many equally legible fonts out there which do not signal "cartoon dog" or similar. So, yes, you can can present your research in the voice of a cartoon dog. But, it is pretty tone deaf.

jarcane 12y ago
I think tone is the correct argument against it. It is essentially kitsch, in font form, and because of that it's going to devalue the information it presents in many contexts, and is thus only likely to go unregarded in contexts where kitsch is basically expected. I recently received a letter from the Finnish employment department demanding more documentation of an alleged business interest. This is a government official making a request that potentially threatens my livelihood. In Comic Sans. As an emotive impact, it was very much like your "cartoon dog". Imagine getting a Garfield condolence card as a layoff notice, or seeing a :) smilie at the end of a foreclosure notice. It seems to immediately impart a lack of respect for the gravity of the situation.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Its entirely subjective. I for instance can't recognize comic sans or any other font than Courier by sight. So for me it carries no insult. So again, what's wrong with that font? Nothing, intrinsically. Its all in the 'internet meme' part that says its passé. Quit subscribing to that (or like me, never emotionally invest in any silly meme) and the issue disappears.
  - jarcane 12y ago
    All aesthetics are subjective, because they are based primarily on associative memory. That's not an argument against their value, that's merely a refusal to acknowledge it.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      Those that assert 'Comic Sans is objectionable' are arguable the ones refusing to acknowledge how subjective it is, right? Clearly its understood that aesthetics are based on associations. I'm here to assert: a significant fraction of the population (non-designers?) have no associations one way or the other.
  - omegaham 12y ago
    > I for instance can't recognize comic sans or any other font than Courier by sight. So for me it carries no insult. While you might not be able to recognize the exact font used, (What's the difference between Arial and Calibri?) you can still look at the general category of font. Times New Roman and other serifed fonts have a connotation of formal writing - the New York Times is written in a serifed font. Courier New, for me, has a connotation of formal military orders (Don't ask me why they write it in that font. I assume it's to be consistent with the 1920s) Even if you can't name the exact font, you still get connotations associated with it. For many programmers, seeing Courier New in a block of text implies code. I'm sure that the reason for doing it originally was probably arbitrary, but it's the established manner of doing things, just like wearing a strip of silk or nylon around your neck is considered more formal than just the collared shirt. Comic Sans is a font that is used to convey informality. It's something that you would use, as one of the Stack Exchange answers cites, as a daycare sign or a pamphlet targeted at children. It's a tool for the job that it's designed for. And while you can use any text to present information, (Any tool becomes a hammer if you try hard enough) it's not the proper tool for presenting formal findings or writing a newspaper. And that's okay - there are plenty of other fonts with the desired level of formality. Of course, you're probably aware of all this, and your response is probably "Well, the rules are pretty stupid. People are taking academic presentations and scientific results less seriously because the font is funny." There's something to this argument, but the fact is that we all make judgments based on past experience, and adherence to social rules is one of the things we judge. If established rules state that you dress nicely to an interview, we negatively judge someone who shows up in a ripped T-shirt and jeans. We might be wrong about such a candidate - he might be the greatest worker alive - but more than likely, his cluelessness (or hostility) regarding the social rules of an interview says something negative about him.
freshyill 12y ago
Well on top of the tone argument, it's just not a particularly good comic font. There are literally hundreds of similar, but better fonts out there. Check out http://blambot.com http://blambot.com for some nice ones. There are plenty there that are more appropriate even for a cartoon dog.

by klunger 12y ago

jarcane 12y ago

I think tone is the correct argument against it. It is essentially kitsch, in font form, and because of that it's going to devalue the information it presents in many contexts, and is thus only likely to go unregarded in contexts where kitsch is basically expected. I recently received a letter from the Finnish employment department demanding more documentation of an alleged business interest. This is a government official making a request that potentially threatens my livelihood. In Comic Sans. As an emotive impact, it was very much like your "cartoon dog". Imagine getting a Garfield condolence card as a layoff notice, or seeing a :) smilie at the end of a foreclosure notice. It seems to immediately impart a lack of respect for the gravity of the situation.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Its entirely subjective. I for instance can't recognize comic sans or any other font than Courier by sight. So for me it carries no insult. So again, what's wrong with that font? Nothing, intrinsically. Its all in the 'internet meme' part that says its passé. Quit subscribing to that (or like me, never emotionally invest in any silly meme) and the issue disappears.
- jarcane 12y ago
  All aesthetics are subjective, because they are based primarily on associative memory. That's not an argument against their value, that's merely a refusal to acknowledge it.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Those that assert 'Comic Sans is objectionable' are arguable the ones refusing to acknowledge how subjective it is, right? Clearly its understood that aesthetics are based on associations. I'm here to assert: a significant fraction of the population (non-designers?) have no associations one way or the other.
- omegaham 12y ago
  > I for instance can't recognize comic sans or any other font than Courier by sight. So for me it carries no insult. While you might not be able to recognize the exact font used, (What's the difference between Arial and Calibri?) you can still look at the general category of font. Times New Roman and other serifed fonts have a connotation of formal writing - the New York Times is written in a serifed font. Courier New, for me, has a connotation of formal military orders (Don't ask me why they write it in that font. I assume it's to be consistent with the 1920s) Even if you can't name the exact font, you still get connotations associated with it. For many programmers, seeing Courier New in a block of text implies code. I'm sure that the reason for doing it originally was probably arbitrary, but it's the established manner of doing things, just like wearing a strip of silk or nylon around your neck is considered more formal than just the collared shirt. Comic Sans is a font that is used to convey informality. It's something that you would use, as one of the Stack Exchange answers cites, as a daycare sign or a pamphlet targeted at children. It's a tool for the job that it's designed for. And while you can use any text to present information, (Any tool becomes a hammer if you try hard enough) it's not the proper tool for presenting formal findings or writing a newspaper. And that's okay - there are plenty of other fonts with the desired level of formality. Of course, you're probably aware of all this, and your response is probably "Well, the rules are pretty stupid. People are taking academic presentations and scientific results less seriously because the font is funny." There's something to this argument, but the fact is that we all make judgments based on past experience, and adherence to social rules is one of the things we judge. If established rules state that you dress nicely to an interview, we negatively judge someone who shows up in a ripped T-shirt and jeans. We might be wrong about such a candidate - he might be the greatest worker alive - but more than likely, his cluelessness (or hostility) regarding the social rules of an interview says something negative about him.

freshyill 12y ago

Well on top of the tone argument, it's just not a particularly good comic font. There are literally hundreds of similar, but better fonts out there. Check out http://blambot.com http://blambot.com for some nice ones. There are plenty there that are more appropriate even for a cartoon dog.