You would think that a web page about fonts would at least make a halfhearted attempt to use fonts that are somewhat readable.
I know we're not supposed to nitpick about formatting details and instead comment on the message itself. But when a page is about fonts, I think its choice of fonts is fair game. :-)
I tried to read the page in Chrome and Firefox on my Galaxy Note 4, and on desktop Chrome and Edge. It's barely readable in any of them.
Combine the spindly thin body font with the layout that doesn't reflow on mobile when you try to zoom in - what a mess.
The article would be so much more readable if it just didn't use a custom font at all and simply let the browser use its default font.
Hopefully I can be forgiven for thinking the article had something to do with fonts, considering that the word appears in the title as well as 22 times in the body. :-)
Not sure why that is the case, the font is a professional font by Adobe (also here https://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/Source+Sans+Pro). Maybe they are using a desktop font (without screen optimization) instead of an actual web font. You can see on the google fonts page that the font performs fine.
The jargon in the type world is a tad different from what's being used here, it bothers me immensely. E.g. a font (file, lead type, etc.) and a typeface (design) are two different things. Type design and typography aren't synonymous either.
I know it's an experiment but I doubt it's likely that the EULA states that the fonts can be manipulated, e.g. you need written consent of Grilli Type if you wish to do this. I'm unaware of the policy in other foundries.
Neat experiment but I don't really see a use for this.
16 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 42.6 ms ] threadI know we're not supposed to nitpick about formatting details and instead comment on the message itself. But when a page is about fonts, I think its choice of fonts is fair game. :-)
I tried to read the page in Chrome and Firefox on my Galaxy Note 4, and on desktop Chrome and Edge. It's barely readable in any of them.
Combine the spindly thin body font with the layout that doesn't reflow on mobile when you try to zoom in - what a mess.
The article would be so much more readable if it just didn't use a custom font at all and simply let the browser use its default font.
The morphing-letters demo is kinda cool though :-)
I know it's an experiment but I doubt it's likely that the EULA states that the fonts can be manipulated, e.g. you need written consent of Grilli Type if you wish to do this. I'm unaware of the policy in other foundries.
Neat experiment but I don't really see a use for this.
Has Adobe discovered this? I be happy having this feature in Photoshop.