sans-serif. serious. sublime. helvetica for iPhone.
interactive. informative. helvetica. iPhone.
(This is not a joke. Well okay, it is. But it’s an actual application. It’s hosted on github. I might even submit it to the AppStore.)
sans-serif. serious. sublime. helvetica for iPhone.
interactive. informative. helvetica. iPhone.
(This is not a joke. Well okay, it is. But it’s an actual application. It’s hosted on github. I might even submit it to the AppStore.)
I spent most of today, and a good part of the last few days, browsing through fonts. I remember picking up a book once in a bookstore that was simply a directory of fonts. It had maybe 100 or so fonts in it, and as I was leafing through it, I couldn’t help but shake my head: they were all alike, why even bother?
While I’m nowhere near a designer, I am starting to appreciate the subtler points of typography (and design in general) now. Staring at individual letters still makes me wonder why we need all those little differences, but seeing a few words in them makes it quite obvious. It’s fascinating how a font can give a piece of text its unique feeling: serious or crazy, old-fashioned or modern, retro or retro-modern, etc.
A great starting point is Ray Larabie’s collection of over 250 free fonts (Alan Quatermain pointed me there). Each font has an associated illustration that shows what it can do. It’s quite amazing to see all these different fonts used for mock record covers, menus, etc., and what little it takes to evoke quite vivid impressions of a genre or era.
Another wonderful resource is Typographica, which publishes reviews of fonts. Their Best of 2008 is well worth checking out to see the variety of fonts that are produced today. Some of them are very “showy,” while other work well for printing books. And they all have their own personalities that they transfer to whatever is printed using them.
With all this choice, it’s very difficult to make decisions. But wasting a few hours marveling at all the variations and getting a feeling for the gamut of designs is well worth it.
I am working on a redesign of EagerEyes, and in the process have been doing a bit of research on typography, design, grids, etc. One thing I do on that website is use an unusual font, Century Gothic. It’s a beautiful font, very light and elegant; though perhaps not the most readable. I’m not sure if I will end up replacing it, but I will certainly need to give it more space, and perhaps increase the default font size, to make it easier to read.
In looking at alternatives, I first went through the list of “web-safe” fonts: Times (New) Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Georgia, Verdana. I was quite surprised that Georgia and Verdana had been designed by Microsoft, partly in an effort to make decent fonts available as standards across the web. These fonts were also specifically designed for readability on screen.
With Vista, Microsoft also introduced a number of new fonts that are very appealing. As a Mac user, I thought they were part of Office, but it turns out that they were made for the new Windows. Needless to say, these fonts were also optimized for the screen, but also use some new features in Microsoft’s ClearType, and are more suited for printing.
All of these new fonts have a decidedly modern edge to them. My interest in typography was sparked again when I saw these fonts crop up in documents a few months ago, and the more I look at them, the more I like them. Cambria, which is “the new Georgia,” is a serif font that feels a bit lighter and less baroque than its predecessor. For sans-serif, there’s Calibri, which is the new Arial, and not very remarkable, IMHO (though it does seem a bit more modern for reasons I can’t explain).
And then there is Candara, which is my favorite. It’s a bit like Verdana, but also more modern looking and with lots of little details that make it absolutely stunning. It may not stand out much in 10pt on screen, but it looks fantastic when large. It’s a lot less straight than Arial/Calibri, but still looks modern and clear, and is also very nicely readable.
These new fonts can’t be considered standard or “web-safe” just yet, but they sure should go into font specifications (“stacks”) before the old ones. I’m so used to seeing Arial for body copy on websites that Georgia/Cambria look quite old-fashioned. But I hope the web will switch to Candara as its new standard font for cutting-edge sites, and hopefully a bit more variety and awareness of typography online.
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on Comic Sans, its creator, history, and the “movement” to ban it. It also discusses its popularity for use in almost any kind of document.
While I don’t like the font, either, I don’t think that it’s such an abomination that it has to be banned. It also seems to be used for titles (the article has an image of what looks like a fax cover) and single words (the “Australia” towel), where people want something that is big and stand out.
Comic Sans is like writing with a Sharpie, and I think a lot of people can relate to that. What it has going for it is weight: when you want to put something in big type so that it will be visible and readable, Comic Sans’s wide spacing, thick lines, and lack of serifs will seem like an obvious choice. Just try putting a few words in 72pt or 96pt Arial and Comic Sans (or, even, the ever popular Times New Roman), which is stronger? Which shouts louder?
I’m all for good type and stuff, but a lot of people just want to put text somewhere that will be seen. It may not be classy or satisfy a designer’s sensibilities – but it works.
