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

Times New Roman alternatives: You can do better (2013)

practicaltypography.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 146 posts

Re: Times New Roman alternatives: You can do better (2013)

#11

Post by frank2 »

mrob wrote: post #7

The best three fonts are: "sans-serif" (for general use), "monospace" (for code), and "serif" (for when you need a secondary font for contrast). The choice of implementation for these fonts should be left to the reader (who will probably use the defaults for their browser/ebook reader). This way everybody gets the fonts they're used to, which are the easiest fonts to read. I don't even know which exact font I'm looki…

I would be interested in reading more about how you prevent web designers from changing the page's font. I used about:config on Firefox to stop fonts from downloading, but that made it hard for me to use github.com and one or 2 other sites because those sites use a font to render icons that are essential parts of the UI.

Re: Times New Roman alternatives: You can do better (2013)

#12

Post by mrob »

frank2 wrote: post #11
mrob wrote: post #7

The best three fonts are: "sans-serif" (for general use), "monospace" (for code), and "serif" (for when you need a secondary font for contrast). The choice of implementation for these fonts should be left to the reader (who will probably use the defaults for their browser/ebook reader). This way everybody gets the fonts they're used to, which are the easiest fonts to read. I don't even know which exact font I'm looki…

I would be interested in reading more about how you prevent web designers from changing the page's font. I used about:config on Firefox to stop fonts from downloading, but that made it hard for me to use github.com and one or 2 other sites because those sites use a font to render icons that are essential parts of the UI.

I remember some trouble with Github many years ago, but it uses inline SVGs for icons now.

Re: Times New Roman alternatives: You can do better (2013)

#13

Post by mixmastamyk »

frank2 wrote: post #11
mrob wrote: post #7

The best three fonts are: "sans-serif" (for general use), "monospace" (for code), and "serif" (for when you need a secondary font for contrast). The choice of implementation for these fonts should be left to the reader (who will probably use the defaults for their browser/ebook reader). This way everybody gets the fonts they're used to, which are the easiest fonts to read. I don't even know which exact font I'm looki…

I would be interested in reading more about how you prevent web designers from changing the page's font. I used about:config on Firefox to stop fonts from downloading, but that made it hard for me to use github.com and one or 2 other sites because those sites use a font to render icons that are essential parts of the UI.

Been an option in the preferences since the days of Netscape, perhaps Mosaic.

Re: Times New Roman alternatives: You can do better (2013)

#14

Post by aasasd »

Has the default font on that site been changed? IIRC it was Valkyrie, but now Century Supra is selected for me, and it doesn't seem to elicit quite the same breath-taking effect. (Not talking about Times New Roman on the linked page.) If my memory and senses don't fault me in the tiredness and drunkenness, then switching to Valkyrie (at the bottom) is highly advised, as with it this site is the most beautiful on the whole web. Every single interval is perfect, which causes fits of irremediable envy for me.

However, Firefox Preview on my phone doesn't seem to answer my efforts towards the aesthetic bliss and refuses to load the font.

BTW, my personal favorite free serif font is Merriweather—particularly for reading long texts. It's somewhat overused on the web, but it's so much better than the next thing. It has the exact right ‘density’, and the shapes are playful just enough to not tire out the eye.

As for sans-serif, alas! If I could have Rosario with good kerning and support for more languages, or Optima with a bit less contrast and more humanistic shapes—I'd be so happy. Until then, it's back to Fira Sans again and again.

Re: Times New Roman alternatives: You can do better (2013)

#15

Post by pvorb »

joe5150 wrote: post #8
Jonnax wrote: post #2

Honestly speaking for myself I think roboto and Calibri are excellent fonts. Readable and aesthetically pleasing, what's the general opinion on these default fonts in the typography world?

I don't care for Calibri and I wish Segoe were the default in Word.

Yes! Segoe UI looks brilliant. I'm not sure how it looks on paper, though.

Re: Times New Roman alternatives: You can do better (2013)

#16

Post by pavlov »

mrob wrote: post #7

The best three fonts are: "sans-serif" (for general use), "monospace" (for code), and "serif" (for when you need a secondary font for contrast). The choice of implementation for these fonts should be left to the reader (who will probably use the defaults for their browser/ebook reader). This way everybody gets the fonts they're used to, which are the easiest fonts to read. I don't even know which exact font I'm looki…

IMO the default for body text should be serif, with sans used for headlines and display text.

There’s a reason books and magazines are set in serif fonts: they are easier to read for long text paragraphs.

GUIs defaulted to sans serif fonts because displays didn’t have enough resolution to properly render serifs, but that’s mostly not the case anymore.

Re: Times New Roman alternatives: You can do better (2013)

#17

Post by mrob »

pavlov wrote: post #16
mrob wrote: post #7

The best three fonts are: "sans-serif" (for general use), "monospace" (for code), and "serif" (for when you need a secondary font for contrast). The choice of implementation for these fonts should be left to the reader (who will probably use the defaults for their browser/ebook reader). This way everybody gets the fonts they're used to, which are the easiest fonts to read. I don't even know which exact font I'm looki…

IMO the default for body text should be serif, with sans used for headlines and display text. There’s a reason books and magazines are set in serif fonts: they are easier to read for long text paragraphs. GUIs defaulted to sans serif fonts because displays didn’t have enough resolution to properly render serifs, but that’s mostly not the case anymore.

I don't think there's anything inherently more legible about either serif or sans-serif fonts. Whichever one you read the most will be most legible to you, which means the default shouldn't be changed even when it's no longer technically necessary.

Re: Times New Roman alternatives: You can do better (2013)

#18

Post by henriquez »

The DejaVu Serif fonts bundled with Ubuntu are a really nice alternative to Times New Roman (and much nicer licensing!)

I have a hard time quantifying why, but they’re much easier on the eyes.

Not a shameless plug I swear but we converted DejaVu Serif to a web font and used it here, if you want to see it “in action:” https://www.obsessivefacts.com/memespeech

Re: Times New Roman alternatives: You can do better (2013)

#19

Post by quietbritishjim »

pavlov wrote: post #16
mrob wrote: post #7

The best three fonts are: "sans-serif" (for general use), "monospace" (for code), and "serif" (for when you need a secondary font for contrast). The choice of implementation for these fonts should be left to the reader (who will probably use the defaults for their browser/ebook reader). This way everybody gets the fonts they're used to, which are the easiest fonts to read. I don't even know which exact font I'm looki…

IMO the default for body text should be serif, with sans used for headlines and display text. There’s a reason books and magazines are set in serif fonts: they are easier to read for long text paragraphs. GUIs defaulted to sans serif fonts because displays didn’t have enough resolution to properly render serifs, but that’s mostly not the case anymore.

Most monitors are definitely still not high enough resolution to render serif fonts more clearly than sans serif ones. (By resolution, I mean the original meaning of pixel density per unit area, not the modern usage of total pixel count.)

Mobile screens are obviously higher resolution so it's less clear cut, but sans serif are still a bit clearer in my view. I think the problem here is that the text is much smaller in physical size, so now the resolution of the human eye has come into play.

Re: Times New Roman alternatives: You can do better (2013)

#20

Post by joegahona »

joe5150 wrote: post #8
Jonnax wrote: post #2

Honestly speaking for myself I think roboto and Calibri are excellent fonts. Readable and aesthetically pleasing, what's the general opinion on these default fonts in the typography world?

I don't care for Calibri and I wish Segoe were the default in Word.

Do you know if this is available in Google Docs? This is the font Notion uses, and I really like it.
Post reply on HN