No particularly interested in MS Word or this font though I guess it's an improvement over the Calibri one, but it's kind of funny it's already 2023 and they seem to be more more worried about the default font than fixing once and for all the issues with unexpected layout breaks - unless the memes about it make for advertising
I’m guessing Microsoft has different teams dedicated to different tasks. They can probably work on layout problems and change the default font simultaneously.
I'm pretty sure Calibri is included with Windows since Vista (along with Segoe UI)- they wouldn't just simply stop bundling it. But if that would happen for whatever reasons then probably Office would ask user if missing font should be downloaded and installed on the system, to provide "best experience" in viewing and working with the document that uses it.
It's kinda fitting that this type of content-free designer-fluff is published on Medium, but also weird to not be published under a microsoft.com domain. How do I know this isn't a random imposter?
It's bizarre isn't it? To read the sort of horse shit people write about fonts you'd think the same text in different fonts conveys different meaning. Maybe this is just yet more wrong -by-design AI output?
In this particular instance I disagree. The default Office font is the font that many people will read/write a very significant portion of the text they consume/produce in. So it’s nice if it’s a decent font.
I totally agree though when it comes to longreads of some over funded startup that redesigned their “brand identity” and commissioned some custom “fun, quirky but still authoritative and inclusive” font. That is just designers cirkcle-wanking.
Assuming you’re sincere :) The same text in different fonts, or different type setting with the same font, absolutely does convey different meaning. Most simply, UPPERCASE IS SHOUTING.
Letterforms make a huge difference to how text is read, perceived, and remembered, and how much it affects us. Unless you’re a wild outlier in some way, you are affected by type treatments.
I don’t know if you can visualize it, but I clearly can: the word “Daisy” set in (a) an elaborate script font, (b) a blocky slab sans-serif, (c) child-like hand-drawn letters. Most people will assign different meanings to each, and many people will derive more meaning from the type than from the word.
Do you have a child? Would you recognize their hand writing? Same thing.
I am sincere. You've picked some pretty obvious differences. I'm talking about the vast majority of fonts which are to all intents and purposes identical. I don't know if you have a kindle but to restate my original question - if you read the same book using each of the 8 or so built-in fonts, do you seriously believe you are reading 8 different books? I'm sorry, it's just a nonsense. Sure, you can have a favourite font or dislike how..i dunno..descending letters look, but I simply don't believe normal human beings look at a (normal, not comic-sans etc) font and a) give a shit about it, and 2) feel that one is more "professional" or "zippy" or some other adjective, like a designer has reached into their soul.
> Principal Program Manager for fonts and Typography, Microsoft Office Design. Formerly Senior Lead PM for fonts and icons, Microsoft Operating Systems Group.
Peak "Shadow IT"? Maybe it took too much effort to post it on the company blog.
(Maybe they maxed out their user account quota on Jira and couldn't post a ticket to get someone to publish their article. Not that anything this silly could happen in a multinational corporation. I'm surely imagining experiencing that.)
Maybe it's their new approach to marketing. To reach people on popular sites in "look, we're using this site too - we're cool and so modern and no different than you ordinary human" way
Microsoft are know to mess with their internal blogging platforms every 3-4 years, breaking everyone's links, the formatting of the posts, embedded images, and killing all the comments (see: The Old New Thing). Maybe their staff have had enough?
The height of the letter "t" is extremely short, especially in comparison to "l" and "b". This makes it very hard to read as it affects the shape of words at a glance.
That‘s the traditional height, see almost every typeface that‘s used for book printing. Only in the computer world has the excessively long t been dominant.
While the name Aptos is explained in the article, I was more curious about the previous name Bierstadt (because the font is "inspired by Swiss typography", but the Swiss are not especially famous for their beer), and I found it in https://medium.com/microsoft-design/beyond-calibri-finding-t...:
> As for the name, Bierstadt is named for one of Colorado’s 14,000-foot peaks. When I think of Swiss type, I think of the Alps, and since I’m based in Boulder, my Alps are the Rockies
So it was more of a multi-step reasoning: Switzerland -> Alps -> Mountains -> Rockies -> peak in the Rockies with German-sounding name -> Bierstadt.
Digging deeper into the rabbit hole, according to Wikipedia Mount Bierstadt was named after Albert Bierstadt, an American landscape painter who made the first recorded summit of the mountain in 1863. Bierstadt was born in Solingen, which is pretty far away from Switzerland (and more known for its fine knives than for its typography or its beer)...
I've always wondered if Ariel was named such so that it sorts at the top of the list of fonts. Thereby making it the default. Then, that brings the question -- is it default because it is the first in a sorted list? Or did they name it purposely so that it would sort to the top?
that's an interesting question, like "AAAA Plumbing" back when the physical phone book was the route for discovery. Folks would deliberately vie for position in that thing.
Asus was either originally going to be or originally intended to be Pegasus, but it was changed to "Asus" to be alphabetically first. I'm sure that's also the story behind the name Abit.
Probably not. Here's something I read: Arial: originally called Sonoran Sans Serif, the designers changed the name to Arial because they wanted a name that would evoke a modern, industrial feel, and because it sounded similar to "aerial," as in "aerial view," which they felt captured the font's modern and futuristic qualities.
When they refer to Swisss typography, they're likely referring to the International Typographic Style, which is also known as the Swiss Style (it's on Wikipedia). It's a style of graphic design. It typically uses a Grotesque sans serif font, like Helvetica or Univers (as opposed to a humanist sans serif).
Closing the loop a bit, Helvetica is the second word of the Latin name of Switzerland (Confoederatio Helvetica). It's why the ISO 3166 code for the country is .ch.
That interview is a great example of fluff responses with Bierstadt being the fluffiest where the fluff starts to conflict with itself.
First:
In today’s world, I believe a grotesque typeface’s voice needs a bit of a *human touch* to be more approachable and less institutional. Bierstadt’s systematic design contains organic touches to help *humanize* digital environments and *soften the regimented order* of grid typography.
Later:
My approach was to design a sans serif that would contrast with Arial by being *far more mechanical and rationalized.*. The terminal endings are *precisely sheared at 90°* — a modern note *contrasting the softer, angled endings* in Arial — and a lack of somewhat fussy curves found in Arial’s “a,” “f,” “y,” and “r.”
> For 15 years, our beloved Calibri was Microsoft’s default font and crown keeper of office communications, but as you know, our relationship has come to a natural end.
I couldn’t see in this article, or in the linked one, any rationale for what prompted the change, why the relationship with Calibri has come to a natural end, or why the new font is better than the old font.
Calibri has been the default font for all things Microsoft 365 since 2007, when it stepped in to replace Times New Roman across Microsoft Office. It has served us all well, but we believe it’s time to evolve.
--- end quote ---
It's literally designers keeping their jobs by running in an endless hamster wheel.
Edit: to those downvoting. Read the articles. This is the entirety of their rationale over two articles. The quote above is from the article they linked as "Calibri has come its natural end": https://medium.com/microsoft-design/beyond-calibri-finding-t...
This is really sad, and it's distasteful for them to mention Calibri in their "rationale". The change made 15 years ago wasn't a fashion churn - it was improving legibility and ergonomics by taking advantage of capabilities of new display technologies.
The switch to Calibri & friends was a real, tangible quality improvement, as those fonts were optimized for - then also new - subpixel rendering, known on Windows as ClearType. Anyone who remembers using Windows at that time, and experienced switching from CRTs to flat panel displays, can surely attest for how big jump in comfort it was to enable ClearType and ditch Arial & Courier & Times New Roman for Calibri, Consolas and Cambria.
(I've lost count of how many programs, on how many machines of various people, I've reconfigured to use Calibri and/or Consolas as default, going as far as extracting and copying over the whole font set to Windows XP machines, and by force of habit, also Windows 2000 and Win 2003 machines - which IIRC didn't have proper ClearType, but the new fonts still looked better than defaults.)
Well, I agree with you in general, but Calibri actually seems to have some / cause some trouble. I recently filed a bug against LibreOffice regarding the rendering of ligatures in documents with Calibri, where you see things like:
... and it turns out that this is due to the use of hard-coded bitmaps for ligature hinting provided for some glyphs but not others, which confuses rendering engines.
Calibri was never that great IMHO. Just like Apple with their San Francisco font, it’s worth a change to get a really great modern font and it looks like Microsoft went all out for Aptos. I like it
Calibri was a big deal when introduced because, along with the other fonts in that cohort[0] (like Consolas), it was optimized for subpixel rendering (known on Windows as ClearType), which was a new thing too, and made huge difference in quality and comfort of reading text on flat panel displays. It was a good, practical reason to create new set of default fonts.
Do you know if that counts "retina"/"2x"/"HiDPI" resolutions as their real or displayed resolution?
(i.e. would a "retina" 4k display be counted as 1920x1080, or as 3840x2160? I suspect the former, and I believe this font is designed to show well at those doubled resolutions.)
I don't have a high-DPI display, but the display size shown on about:support (which I suspect is also what is being transmitted via telemetry) seems to properly handle Window's display scaling – I've experimentally changed it to a value > 100 % and the display size reported by Firefox remains unaffected, only the scaling changes accordingly.
Plus if you hover over the diagram, you can eventually discover some screen resolutions > 1920x1080, although all of them in the low single-digit percents. (And some might be lumped together underneath the "Other" category.)
Designers feel the need to justify their continued existence for the purpose of job security. So once in a while they'll convince corporate they absolutely HAVE to change everything up for no reason, and they'll spew out pages of poetic nonsensical Gish gallop along with it, to hypnotise everyone into agreeing and let corporate convince themselves that they haven't wasted millions that could have been spent on anything else to benefit the company or, dare I say, humanity.
Ever notice how the more pointless or frivolous a change in design is, the more BS the designers include to back up their case? Think of any of the major design milestones of the last few decades - those striking, arresting works of design that revolutionised society. Did any of those come with a high school C-grade creative writing essay attached to it? Of course not. The design speaks for itself. When you have good design, you feel no need to back it up with a mental gymnastic exercise explaining why it actually is a better design and that everyone who disagrees obviously just doesn't have the intellect to appreciate the artistic vision that you have.
The job of designers is solely to make pretty things. The backup plan of designers is to make people feel good with dopamine-inducing verbiage. In the myriad cases where they fail at their job and produce something ugly and demonstrably worse than the previous version, they go into overdrive with the backup plan in the hopes that their mushy sugar-coated words will hide the bitter taste of their regrettable design choices that they've already spent millions of corporate (and, in some cases, taxpayers'!) budget 'executing'.
Notice also how they try to pass it off as just the natural passing of things, like these things happen, get used to it, as if gratuitous interface changes and jarring layout reshuffles are just a fact of life, like taxes, laundry or fruit flies. Like this idea that one's relationship with a font of all things can "come to a natural end." Again, it's a form of hypnosis. Because God forbid the higher-ups snap out of this trance before they sign off another multi-million-dollar contract for some tacky new coat of paint to be slapped all over the old just for the sake of it.
You see the same with cPanel: "It's time to switch to the Jupiter theme." Says who? Who dictates that "the time has come" in this way, as if it's a universal truth and not something they're coercing us into using? Look at any cPanel forum thread where someone asks why they're forcing this godawful new theme upon us and how exactly it's better. The cPanel staff can never give any meaningful answer to those questions, because there are no reasons. So they repeat the same designer nonsense, or better yet, give no reason at all. And so the design of things continues to get worse, the icons less and less readable, the screen space more and more wasted, the corners more rounded, the jobs of normal working people that little bit harder and more unpleasant as they have to squint for the less-readable icons and moved-around UI elements when the previous version worked perfectly fine and was loved by everyone, all for the sake of the ego of some designer somewhere, who I dare say is very pleased with themselves about making life that little bit worse for everyone else.
That's such a cynic and may I say arrogant take on things and on the important work designers do. One could equally argue engineers refactor code just "to justify their continued existence for the purpose of job security". Or Product Managers rejig priority lists only "to justify their continued existence for the purpose of job security" etc etc etc
There's a difference between designing because they are designing to please a middle-manager that has directed them to "innovate" in that corporate sphere and design that is meant to be used and enjoyed by an end-user in comfort, i.e. human ergonomics.
A design language fad I hated from day one is MS's Metro design language which Apple also adopted in iOS 7, the format of which is that there must be as much glaring white space as possible, the user must be kept guessing which part of the screen is a button or switch and stab randomly at it until they find it, fonts must be spindly and thin, etc.
Has to be. I stopped believe long ago in visual changes in software being anything else than marketing done in "we do improve things" fashion.
I mean, just look at this video of Office icons: https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=VvOaGTtY6Y8 It's a new icons set and they're trying to portray it as a technological breakthrough.
Of course changes to the UI and UX are important and always interesting, don't get me wrong - I just despise the all that mindless fluff that always comes with it. Each time I'm having flashbacks of document by Arnell Group who introduced new Pepsi logo: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Oh my… the amount of BS that was written in that document was something truly enlightening. To think that BS cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars…
I think this comment helps me to finally understand the concept of memetic evolution - you are seeing intelligent design, but it's possible that this document just organically was chosen through its version of "natural selection" to be one that has propagated.
What do you think sells pepsi cans? Why are there only two brands in the United States that have meaningful market share in the dark syrup + water industry? Do you think it's because of something done by engineers in a basement with papers stacked up to the ceiling, or do you think it is possible that these two companies are global experts in capturing the attention and imagination of billions of people and have done so better than anyone else in human history using the shape of a can, a logo, and a font. If you don't buy the rationale provided in that document, fine, but rationality doesn't sell trillions of cans of syrup water, Vitruvian Man, Golden Ratio, Feng Shui, earth Geodynamo 'woowoo' does.
The failure is mostly because there's no one left at Microsoft (or anywhere) to do the same research: gather and evaluate data over decades, make informed decisions, iterate on designs etc.
Fashion churn is probably part of it, but high-DPI screens are commonplace now and were more-or-less nonexistent when Calibri (which was designed to look good on screens of its era) was introduced. That alone seems like reason enough to have a different default.
It's been 15 years; from my point of view, understanding and application of fonts has changed or been improved radically. Smartphones and the mobile internet were only beginning around that time; the amount of people with internet has multiplied fivefold [0] since then, the quality and resolution of screens has gone up by leaps and bounds, and yes, fashion and design changed since then, like how before Calibri, Times New Roman was starting to look and feel old-fashioned.
To the degrees and manners typography matters, there are better and worse typefaces.
For example, in the past some typefaces were better for optical character recognition than others and a different set of typefaces were easier to read on a CRT.
This is in addition to cultural connotations like are associated with typefaces like Helvetica or Comic Sans where typefaces themselves can say something based on how they have been used over many years.
There is a rationale at the beginning of the article:
> The technology we use every day has changed. And so, our search of the perfect font for higher resolution screens began. The font needed to have sharpness, uniformity, and be great for display type.
If HN had a "pin" feature for comments, this would take the cake.
It feels far too coincidental for this not to be relevant. Fashion/busybodies of font stylists and marketing and display variance may play a part, but the timing cannot be unrelated.
Part of it is display technology. Calibri was chosen for an era where typography was increasingly digital but serif fonts rendered badly on the low-resolution screens of ~2009.
Aptos is still sans-serif but I think its shapes are too subtle for a low resolution monitor from that era. It looks much better on "Retina"-esque devices that are viewed in closeup.
The psychology of type is complicated. Some of it is fashion; some of it is innate; some of it is cultural which is neither completely arbitrary nor completely immutable.
In addition consumers begin to spot things that look out of place and attribute negatively to that. Calibri definitely looks "quaint" these days with its very rounded, extremely soft shapes.
I still use fonts with good hinting that pre-date Calibri (e.g. Verdana) because they were hinted for displays that didn't always have anti-aliasing available. On this display I intentionally turn AA off and override browser choices because I like crisp fonts not blurry smeared fonts.
I don't have a 4K display and I would suggest to OS makers to smarten up and turn AA off today because you don't need AA on higher ppi displays.
Fonts, like layout and design goes through fads and I dislike the current trend of "let's make everything spindly and hard to see in a sea of endless whitespace". For me, my perspective on typography is that the most important part of it is the user experience, i.e. readability!
I don't care how uniquely sculpted an individual single character in isolation is. What's important is readability. Can the reader view the text with flow in comfort? If yes, then it is successful. If not, then it's just faddish presentation that needs overriding with more sane choices. Part of that is also the weight of the type, there needs to be balance with the page background also so the letters don't shimmer, etc.
> I dislike the current trend of "let's make everything spindly and hard to see in a sea of endless whitespace".
Actually, the peak of that phase is gone for several years now. We’re already back at proper contrast, borders, and shadows. Take a look at more recent redesign, or just the front page of Dribbble, to notice that.
Compared side-by-side, Aptos looks rounder and less square, and it has more natural looking curves.
The problem is that differences in fonts are kind of subtle when their goals are very similar. Both Roboto and Aptos seem like they're trying to be high x-height grotesque sans serif fonts. They're going to look similar to some other font, because there are so many in that category already.
(However, the capitals of Aptos remind me more of Gill Sans than of Helvetica, so I guess it's not strictly grotesque.)
Capital Q looks similar to capital O - like an O with large dust speck on your monitor. Since Q isn't common, I guess the chances for confusion are also rare.
Lowercase g looks weird since other letters with circular strokes have a lower baseline (bcdeopq).
> Similar to mid-20th-century Swiss typography, Aptos is a sans serif.
Starting this paragraph immediately underneath an image of a serif version of the typeface made me briefly question everything I know about the subject.
Yeah. I have no idea what those images have to do with the surrounding text. Even ignoring the context, they don’t demonstrate what the font actually looks like all that well. That and, as others mentioned, it being published on medium.com instead of microsoft.com makes the whole thing look very unprofessional.
Is there a link to the font displayed in a longer example? I found the inline images both incomplete examples and hard to read with poor contrast. And even the paragraph about the double stacked g was next to an image without a g.
It looks like it could be a really nice font but it isn’t displayed well to show off!
> He designed the font with a slight humanist touch. He wanted Aptos to have the universal appeal of the late NPR newscaster Carl Kasell and the astute tone of The Late Show host Stephen Colbert.
> I really hope that's not a sign of things to come in terms of popular design.
I think it is. I think design goes in cycles of clutter, minimalism, clutter, minimalism, repeat. We had our clutter in the 90s and 00s, then minimalism from the 10s on, now we could very well be headed back to clutter.
Changing the default fonts in Office acts as a generational marker for documents.
A lot of non-professionally designed content gets produced with these defaults: Excel sheets and memoirs and school essays and wills and corporate PowerPoints and the haphazard printed sign on the coffee shop’s door that announces a job vacancy.
All of that was in Calibri, but soon it will be in Aptos. And in a couple of years Calibri will start looking oddly nostalgic to people born around 2000.
These Office font generations are also useful for detecting forgeries. There was a court case involving an inheritance where documents supposedly printed in 2005 were set in Calibri, which wasn’t available yet.
that was an interesting diversion, didn't expect to hear a reference about a fifth generational warfare bit either. Very surprising.
8:36 on the other hand, Reddit has been known to be a target of organized foreign trolling campaigns by organizations like Russia's Internet Research Agency. A common tactic amongst these troll accounts is to post to popular subreddits in order to build Reddit Karma. Choosing to use one obscure Cyrillic alphabet font does not prove things one way or the other but there is a good reason to consider using this font type a graphically suspect.
https://youtu.be/cJYm-de_UHE?t=516
And of course there was the time when Dan Rather got busted using forged documents in "Memogate" due to something very similar - fonts from Word pretending to be a document from the 70s. The Wikipedia article has a nice animated GIF comparing the forged document to Word's default settings in 2004.
The irony in naming a typeface "Aptos" is lost on folks who have never driven around Santa Cruz County: in the mid-90s, there was at least one highway sign indicating Aptos, where the lowercase "p" had a displaced descender far above the baseline, for no good reason. Also there is no good reason why I'm unable to locate a photograph of that sign today.
My girlfriend was a graphic design artist, and she and I would always cringe-laugh when we drove by. It was more or less like this: https://xkcd.com/1015/
Looks handsome and versatile. I don’t mind the serif variation either.
Also, designed by Steve Matteson, who also designed Open Sans which for my money is one of the very best UI typefaces around.
It's a person trying to explain their feelings about something in the context of font design; it's not actually real. Think of how people use various phrases to describe wine, e.g. the list here https://www.thebacklabel.com/10-most-ridiculous-wine-descrip...
183 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 294 ms ] threadI totally agree though when it comes to longreads of some over funded startup that redesigned their “brand identity” and commissioned some custom “fun, quirky but still authoritative and inclusive” font. That is just designers cirkcle-wanking.
Letterforms make a huge difference to how text is read, perceived, and remembered, and how much it affects us. Unless you’re a wild outlier in some way, you are affected by type treatments.
I don’t know if you can visualize it, but I clearly can: the word “Daisy” set in (a) an elaborate script font, (b) a blocky slab sans-serif, (c) child-like hand-drawn letters. Most people will assign different meanings to each, and many people will derive more meaning from the type than from the word.
Do you have a child? Would you recognize their hand writing? Same thing.
> Principal Program Manager for fonts and Typography, Microsoft Office Design. Formerly Senior Lead PM for fonts and icons, Microsoft Operating Systems Group.
It does seem totally bizarre to me to make a big product announcement on a third party's website.
(Maybe they maxed out their user account quota on Jira and couldn't post a ticket to get someone to publish their article. Not that anything this silly could happen in a multinational corporation. I'm surely imagining experiencing that.)
Go to https://www.microsoft.com/design
Scroll to the bottom.
Look for the set of social media links; the first one is an “M”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Nealian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaner-Bloser_(teaching_script)
All have full height t, and predate computers (significantly in the case of the latter two)
> As for the name, Bierstadt is named for one of Colorado’s 14,000-foot peaks. When I think of Swiss type, I think of the Alps, and since I’m based in Boulder, my Alps are the Rockies
So it was more of a multi-step reasoning: Switzerland -> Alps -> Mountains -> Rockies -> peak in the Rockies with German-sounding name -> Bierstadt.
Digging deeper into the rabbit hole, according to Wikipedia Mount Bierstadt was named after Albert Bierstadt, an American landscape painter who made the first recorded summit of the mountain in 1863. Bierstadt was born in Solingen, which is pretty far away from Switzerland (and more known for its fine knives than for its typography or its beer)...
"Helvetia" exists too, as the female national personification of Switzerland.
Both are indeed derived from the Helvetii.
First:
In today’s world, I believe a grotesque typeface’s voice needs a bit of a *human touch* to be more approachable and less institutional. Bierstadt’s systematic design contains organic touches to help *humanize* digital environments and *soften the regimented order* of grid typography.
Later:
My approach was to design a sans serif that would contrast with Arial by being *far more mechanical and rationalized.*. The terminal endings are *precisely sheared at 90°* — a modern note *contrasting the softer, angled endings* in Arial — and a lack of somewhat fussy curves found in Arial’s “a,” “f,” “y,” and “r.”
Maybe Arial was too human?
I couldn’t see in this article, or in the linked one, any rationale for what prompted the change, why the relationship with Calibri has come to a natural end, or why the new font is better than the old font.
Is this just pure fashion churn?
--- start quote ---
Calibri has been the default font for all things Microsoft 365 since 2007, when it stepped in to replace Times New Roman across Microsoft Office. It has served us all well, but we believe it’s time to evolve.
--- end quote ---
It's literally designers keeping their jobs by running in an endless hamster wheel.
Edit: to those downvoting. Read the articles. This is the entirety of their rationale over two articles. The quote above is from the article they linked as "Calibri has come its natural end": https://medium.com/microsoft-design/beyond-calibri-finding-t...
The switch to Calibri & friends was a real, tangible quality improvement, as those fonts were optimized for - then also new - subpixel rendering, known on Windows as ClearType. Anyone who remembers using Windows at that time, and experienced switching from CRTs to flat panel displays, can surely attest for how big jump in comfort it was to enable ClearType and ditch Arial & Courier & Times New Roman for Calibri, Consolas and Cambria.
(I've lost count of how many programs, on how many machines of various people, I've reconfigured to use Calibri and/or Consolas as default, going as far as extracting and copying over the whole font set to Windows XP machines, and by force of habit, also Windows 2000 and Win 2003 machines - which IIRC didn't have proper ClearType, but the new fonts still looked better than defaults.)
https://bug-attachments.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cg...
... and it turns out that this is due to the use of hard-coded bitmaps for ligature hinting provided for some glyphs but not others, which confuses rendering engines.
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155199
[1] https://fontsinuse.com/typefaces/31774/san-francisco-1984
[2] https://www.kreativekorp.com/software/fonts/urbanrenewal/
--
[0] - See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearType#ClearType_Font_Colle...
(i.e. would a "retina" 4k display be counted as 1920x1080, or as 3840x2160? I suspect the former, and I believe this font is designed to show well at those doubled resolutions.)
Plus if you hover over the diagram, you can eventually discover some screen resolutions > 1920x1080, although all of them in the low single-digit percents. (And some might be lumped together underneath the "Other" category.)
Designers feel the need to justify their continued existence for the purpose of job security. So once in a while they'll convince corporate they absolutely HAVE to change everything up for no reason, and they'll spew out pages of poetic nonsensical Gish gallop along with it, to hypnotise everyone into agreeing and let corporate convince themselves that they haven't wasted millions that could have been spent on anything else to benefit the company or, dare I say, humanity.
Ever notice how the more pointless or frivolous a change in design is, the more BS the designers include to back up their case? Think of any of the major design milestones of the last few decades - those striking, arresting works of design that revolutionised society. Did any of those come with a high school C-grade creative writing essay attached to it? Of course not. The design speaks for itself. When you have good design, you feel no need to back it up with a mental gymnastic exercise explaining why it actually is a better design and that everyone who disagrees obviously just doesn't have the intellect to appreciate the artistic vision that you have.
The job of designers is solely to make pretty things. The backup plan of designers is to make people feel good with dopamine-inducing verbiage. In the myriad cases where they fail at their job and produce something ugly and demonstrably worse than the previous version, they go into overdrive with the backup plan in the hopes that their mushy sugar-coated words will hide the bitter taste of their regrettable design choices that they've already spent millions of corporate (and, in some cases, taxpayers'!) budget 'executing'.
Notice also how they try to pass it off as just the natural passing of things, like these things happen, get used to it, as if gratuitous interface changes and jarring layout reshuffles are just a fact of life, like taxes, laundry or fruit flies. Like this idea that one's relationship with a font of all things can "come to a natural end." Again, it's a form of hypnosis. Because God forbid the higher-ups snap out of this trance before they sign off another multi-million-dollar contract for some tacky new coat of paint to be slapped all over the old just for the sake of it.
You see the same with cPanel: "It's time to switch to the Jupiter theme." Says who? Who dictates that "the time has come" in this way, as if it's a universal truth and not something they're coercing us into using? Look at any cPanel forum thread where someone asks why they're forcing this godawful new theme upon us and how exactly it's better. The cPanel staff can never give any meaningful answer to those questions, because there are no reasons. So they repeat the same designer nonsense, or better yet, give no reason at all. And so the design of things continues to get worse, the icons less and less readable, the screen space more and more wasted, the corners more rounded, the jobs of normal working people that little bit harder and more unpleasant as they have to squint for the less-readable icons and moved-around UI elements when the previous version worked perfectly fine and was loved by everyone, all for the sake of the ego of some designer somewhere, who I dare say is very pleased with themselves about making life that little bit worse for everyone else.
Design changes are most often more rewrite than refactor.
Let me offer you a small light to guide you should you wish to be enlightened:
Stable API <--> Brand (Loyalty|Image|Perception)
A design language fad I hated from day one is MS's Metro design language which Apple also adopted in iOS 7, the format of which is that there must be as much glaring white space as possible, the user must be kept guessing which part of the screen is a button or switch and stab randomly at it until they find it, fonts must be spindly and thin, etc.
Has to be. I stopped believe long ago in visual changes in software being anything else than marketing done in "we do improve things" fashion.
I mean, just look at this video of Office icons: https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=VvOaGTtY6Y8 It's a new icons set and they're trying to portray it as a technological breakthrough.
Of course changes to the UI and UX are important and always interesting, don't get me wrong - I just despise the all that mindless fluff that always comes with it. Each time I'm having flashbacks of document by Arnell Group who introduced new Pepsi logo: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
> 1 light year = 671 million miles per hour
x Distance = y Speed
[1]: https://jimedwardsnrx.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/pepsi_grav...
This document has been circulating for many years and keep being reshared and the Pepsi brand is reinforced everytime.
[0] https://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm
To the degrees and manners typography matters, there are better and worse typefaces.
For example, in the past some typefaces were better for optical character recognition than others and a different set of typefaces were easier to read on a CRT.
This is in addition to cultural connotations like are associated with typefaces like Helvetica or Comic Sans where typefaces themselves can say something based on how they have been used over many years.
> The technology we use every day has changed. And so, our search of the perfect font for higher resolution screens began. The font needed to have sharpness, uniformity, and be great for display type.
It feels far too coincidental for this not to be relevant. Fashion/busybodies of font stylists and marketing and display variance may play a part, but the timing cannot be unrelated.
Like with stories, upvotes ar private, favourites are public:
https://news.ycombinator.com/favorites?id=e12e&comments=t
Part of it is display technology. Calibri was chosen for an era where typography was increasingly digital but serif fonts rendered badly on the low-resolution screens of ~2009.
Aptos is still sans-serif but I think its shapes are too subtle for a low resolution monitor from that era. It looks much better on "Retina"-esque devices that are viewed in closeup.
The psychology of type is complicated. Some of it is fashion; some of it is innate; some of it is cultural which is neither completely arbitrary nor completely immutable.
In addition consumers begin to spot things that look out of place and attribute negatively to that. Calibri definitely looks "quaint" these days with its very rounded, extremely soft shapes.
I don't have a 4K display and I would suggest to OS makers to smarten up and turn AA off today because you don't need AA on higher ppi displays.
Fonts, like layout and design goes through fads and I dislike the current trend of "let's make everything spindly and hard to see in a sea of endless whitespace". For me, my perspective on typography is that the most important part of it is the user experience, i.e. readability!
I don't care how uniquely sculpted an individual single character in isolation is. What's important is readability. Can the reader view the text with flow in comfort? If yes, then it is successful. If not, then it's just faddish presentation that needs overriding with more sane choices. Part of that is also the weight of the type, there needs to be balance with the page background also so the letters don't shimmer, etc.
Actually, the peak of that phase is gone for several years now. We’re already back at proper contrast, borders, and shadows. Take a look at more recent redesign, or just the front page of Dribbble, to notice that.
Here's Aptos (MS) vs Roboto (Google) vs San Francisco (Apple) vs Helvetica
https://kalleboo.com/linked/aptos-roboto-sf-helvetica.png
The problem is that differences in fonts are kind of subtle when their goals are very similar. Both Roboto and Aptos seem like they're trying to be high x-height grotesque sans serif fonts. They're going to look similar to some other font, because there are so many in that category already.
(However, the capitals of Aptos remind me more of Gill Sans than of Helvetica, so I guess it's not strictly grotesque.)
Lowercase g looks weird since other letters with circular strokes have a lower baseline (bcdeopq).
Starting this paragraph immediately underneath an image of a serif version of the typeface made me briefly question everything I know about the subject.
- NeXT used it (and properly paid for a license)
- Linotype sued them over the early Windows stroke fonts Roman and Sans being aliased to "Tms Rmn" and "Helv"
It looks like it could be a really nice font but it isn’t displayed well to show off!
edit: and vs some other fonts https://kalleboo.com/linked/aptos-roboto-sf-helvetica.png
So interesting to me that they kept the kerning of Aptos so tight. At least it looks like a modern, good font.
That said, Helvetica FTW (although I might actually like SF the most; certainly the most legible).
Also am I the only one who finds the design of the images in that article ugly?
I don't mean the font itself, I mean the choice of colors, the busy/distracting visual clutter everywhere, and the brightness/intensity of everything.
I really hope that's not a sign of things to come in terms of popular design.
I think it is. I think design goes in cycles of clutter, minimalism, clutter, minimalism, repeat. We had our clutter in the 90s and 00s, then minimalism from the 10s on, now we could very well be headed back to clutter.
A lot of non-professionally designed content gets produced with these defaults: Excel sheets and memoirs and school essays and wills and corporate PowerPoints and the haphazard printed sign on the coffee shop’s door that announces a job vacancy.
All of that was in Calibri, but soon it will be in Aptos. And in a couple of years Calibri will start looking oddly nostalgic to people born around 2000.
These Office font generations are also useful for detecting forgeries. There was a court case involving an inheritance where documents supposedly printed in 2005 were set in Calibri, which wasn’t available yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJYm-de_UHE
8:36 on the other hand, Reddit has been known to be a target of organized foreign trolling campaigns by organizations like Russia's Internet Research Agency. A common tactic amongst these troll accounts is to post to popular subreddits in order to build Reddit Karma. Choosing to use one obscure Cyrillic alphabet font does not prove things one way or the other but there is a good reason to consider using this font type a graphically suspect. https://youtu.be/cJYm-de_UHE?t=516
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy
https://datacolada.org/98
>The Aptos font will be available for download (coming soon).
[1] https://archive.is/3c2tZ
My girlfriend was a graphic design artist, and she and I would always cringe-laugh when we drove by. It was more or less like this: https://xkcd.com/1015/
What is this even supposed to mean? In the context of font design.