That's not the San Francisco font I remember... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_%281984_typeface%...
Before and after sightglass.
Show HN: Typedetail.com – featuring Apple's new typeface San Francisco
71–79 of 79 posts
Re: Show HN: Typedetail.com – featuring Apple's new typeface San Francisco
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
That practice died out years ago with the rise of browser support for @font-face and the hosted webfont industry. Of course, you'll still encounter legacy sites that assume installed fonts, but no professional designer is going to specify type that way on a new project.
Ah you mean yet more stuff to download and slowdown page loading
Unless it's cached.
And yes, more stuff to download to make your experience nicer to have design and heterogeneity in our lives.
Re: Show HN: Typedetail.com – featuring Apple's new typeface San Francisco
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I'm just not very observant and/or a philistine but I can't be the only one that can't tell the difference between these fonts without looking very hard. I doubt I would be able to tell at all if you swapped any of those fonts.
You are not. Typography is an extremely constrained design space with tons of little details and small differences. If you constrain yourself to readable type suitable for use on screen the space gets smaller, still. That’s why I love it. You don’t have to – but you should also then probably not offer up your opinion on fonts (which you didn’t, but many people do, in that same sneering and really annoying way some pe…
Not the OP, but as with contemporary art, I strongly feel that "this shouldn't be as big of a thing as it is" is a perfectly valid opinion to have.
Re: Show HN: Typedetail.com – featuring Apple's new typeface San Francisco
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah you mean yet more stuff to download and slowdown page loading
Unless it's cached. And yes, more stuff to download to make your experience nicer to have design and heterogeneity in our lives.
Depends is it worth the extra page weight and slower speed to cater for the designers typographical choices in 99.99% of cases no its not.
Re: Show HN: Typedetail.com – featuring Apple's new typeface San Francisco
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is the one part about typography that has always confused me - San Francisco is clearly a variation of FF DIN. Can you buy a 'licenses' to use and make your own variation of a typeface?
From a copyright standpoint in the US, you can copy the glyph outlines of fonts (usually some form of bezier curve or in some cases bitmap) without violating copyright. They are completely uncopyrightable. Most fonts though (TrueType and OpenType) have a hinting language in them which is code and it is copyrightable since it is computer software. This means you can't just copy DIN font files themselves and distribute…
But is it customary to just go ahead and copy a font without paying for any sort of license for it? Is that standard procedure?
Would Apple have paid to modify and use FF DIN in their devices?
Re: Show HN: Typedetail.com – featuring Apple's new typeface San Francisco
#76For those of you with a Developer Account, the fonts can be downloaded here:
https://developer.apple.com/watch/human-interface-guidelines...
The rounded version is missing in the package, though.
The whole font is in the iOS-Simulator[1], but they don't seem to be usable. They have a ".San Fransico …" name.
[1] https://twitter.com/chockenberry/status/534865299234127872
Re: Show HN: Typedetail.com – featuring Apple's new typeface San Francisco
#77> The typeface is licensed exclusively to registered third-party developers for the “design and development of applications for the Apple Watch”. [1] Cool. Another font for web designers to wrongfully assume I have installed on my system. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_(2014_typeface)
That practice died out years ago with the rise of browser support for @font-face and the hosted webfont industry. Of course, you'll still encounter legacy sites that assume installed fonts, but no professional designer is going to specify type that way on a new project.
I see countless sites that use `Helvetica`.
Re: Show HN: Typedetail.com – featuring Apple's new typeface San Francisco
#78On a related note, here's a comparison between Apple's San Francisco and Google's Roboto, along with FF DIN and Helvetica: http://www.fontshop.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/comparison...
The lower-case a in the PDFs doesn't display the same as the lower case a in the linked website.
They look the same to me... here's a screenshot of them side-by-side (PDF on the left, website on the right): http://i.imgur.com/ToQFktD.png
Re: Show HN: Typedetail.com – featuring Apple's new typeface San Francisco
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are not. Typography is an extremely constrained design space with tons of little details and small differences. If you constrain yourself to readable type suitable for use on screen the space gets smaller, still. That’s why I love it. You don’t have to – but you should also then probably not offer up your opinion on fonts (which you didn’t, but many people do, in that same sneering and really annoying way some pe…
Not the OP, but as with contemporary art, I strongly feel that "this shouldn't be as big of a thing as it is" is a perfectly valid opinion to have.
That’s a really boring opinion that is tremendously uninteresting and completely unsurprising. I do not know why anyone feels the need to express an opinion so utterly boring and predictable. It’s just cliche, zero substance.
I mean, if you think something is not interesting why add to that uninterestingness by saying something that itself is so utterly uninteresting.
I’m really a fan of amateur thinking and talking about art because I am also quite clueless about art (contemporary and all other art), so I think it’s great to talk about it even if you are clueless, but I do try to avoid clichés and if I don’t get something I assume that I either don’t know the context (context does tremendous things to elevate all human endeavors and can make something that seems superficially boring or worthless very interesting) or that there really is nothing to it – but I don’t really possess the ability to judge what’s what.
I think that’s a very reasonable assumption to make when looking at contemporary art and you are clueless about art – and you also avoid dealing in clichés as a result.