Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The New Web Typography

robinrendle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: The New Web Typography

#61

Post by [deleted] »

mrob wrote: post #41
digitalengineer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you should leave the typography to the client Who is 'you'? A back-end developer? Then, yes. A front-end developer or UX person with design background? Then: no. We don't make websites for 'the client', we make them for their clients.

The client is the person paying for the website. They want fancy fonts because they want a strong brand and all that bullshit. The client's client is the person reading the website. Fancy design is actively harmful to them. I make my "should" claim as somebody reading websites, not somebody paying for website design. I'm fully aware that designers are less likely to listen to me than to the client who's paying them,…

[deleted]

Re: The New Web Typography

#62

Post by dreamfactory2 »

z3t4 wrote: post #51
mrob wrote: post #26

The most readable font is the the font you're most familiar with. Spencerian script is almost illegible to me, but for people who read it ever day it's no problem. The same is true of blackletter scripts. No matter how ugly the font, people can adapt to it, and once they've adapted they'll find it preferable. If you really care about prioritizing the text, you should leave the typography to the client. I do not care…

While I think this rant is valid. Many people care more about look then readability. If it looks boring, they might not read it. So I think it's up to the client to do the font override, etc.

The rant is uninformed. Typographic design (which is the basis of all graphic design) is all about readability and reinforcing meaning of the text. The 75 character line thing for example is based on comfortable eye scanning for text at book distance from the viewer (rather than being some decorative notion).

Typographic design has centuries of practise behind it and web typography is correctly considered crude and immature by trained typographers. It's the technology that causes the poor experience and one which typographers are in the early days of addressing.

Re: The New Web Typography

#63

Post by ommunist »

That was a good read, thank you. However, presenting Tchichold's criterion to a modern multilingual website can be a bit overwhelming. How about Mandarin-Arabic website (I recently made one)? These are very different cultures. Both cultures have very strong opinions on typography. Both are very new to the Web. I say, typographical challenges for the real web are quite unique, and where I agree with the author - bad typography is much better than no typography at all.

Re: The New Web Typography

#64

Post by dreamfactory2 »

Theodores wrote: post #29

Content is king and always will be. Get that right with 'default-ish' typography (and whitespace) and you are good to go. To convey your message put effort into getting that content into sensible length sentences with sensible headings and 'p' tags (not rocket science). That is it, job done. In my professional life I have worked with many people that call themselves designers and 'know better than me' about typograph…

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. These people have done their 10k hours in the field while you've done it in a different field - and it just comes off as ignorant bullying to call them charlatans etc.

For example:

> Their little flourishes such as changing the letter spacing are usually an insult to the original font designer, but that is something they feel compelled to do

Yes that's what's supposed to happen. Why? Because font technology is incredibly crude and undeveloped when it comes to letter spacing and making things _readable_. Calling it out just displays ignorance of the field, and ignorance of one's own ignorance to boot.

_But_ having said that, I think you are getting at the key point - which is that there is a huge impedance mismatch between centuries of print design (e.g. point size, spacing that digital fonts can't do) and the new constraints and capabilities of digital (e.g. variable contrast, accessibility). That is reflected in toolsets and skillsets (this thread demonstrate well that technically trained people are equally ill-equipped to recognise, let alone bridge that). This is what the whole article was about even if it did seem to go around the houses a bit.

Re: The New Web Typography

#65

Post by ommunist »

digitalengineer wrote: post #39
mrob wrote: post #26

The most readable font is the the font you're most familiar with. Spencerian script is almost illegible to me, but for people who read it ever day it's no problem. The same is true of blackletter scripts. No matter how ugly the font, people can adapt to it, and once they've adapted they'll find it preferable. If you really care about prioritizing the text, you should leave the typography to the client. I do not care…

> you should leave the typography to the client Who is 'you'? A back-end developer? Then, yes. A front-end developer or UX person with design background? Then: no. We don't make websites for 'the client', we make them for their clients.

Well, actually you do it for your customer, and if you are able to persuade your customer that this is for his clients, than yes, you can have it.

Re: The New Web Typography

#66

Post by e12e »

bigbugbag wrote: post #53
e12e wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice catch, but I think you're a little too harsh. First of all, the site looks better than most other sites, with js off (I also use noscript). Secondly, one has to ask why js is disabled. The site probably looks as fine as it could in lynx or w3m. A spider can read the semantic markup fine. A screenreader while pronounce the text as well (or poorly) as is. I think most people realize that there are certain limits t…

> I also wish one could simply add a link to a font-file in the -element and be done with it. You know you can do just that, don't you ?[1]. [1]: https://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/using-font-face/

If I wasn't clear: http://hackademix.net/2010/03/24/why-noscript-blocks-web-fon...
Post reply on HN