Times New Roman alternatives: You can do better (2013) • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by ncmncm » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 1:22 AM UTC

henriquez wrote: post #18

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

Deja Vu fonts are relentlessly unpleasant, blotchy and lumpen.

Linux Libertine O is a better font in every way. If you really feel like you need a sans, Biolinum is pleasing.

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

#82

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 1:41 AM UTC

quietbritishjim wrote: post #19

pavlov wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> By resolution, I mean the original meaning of pixel density per unit area, not the modern usage of total pixel count.

Interesting - I wasn't aware "resolution" was ever used this way. PPI (pixels per inch) and "pixel density" are common terms for this now.

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

#83

Post by juped » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 1:58 AM UTC

ken wrote: post #40

He lists only three 'flaws' with Times New Roman. The first is: > It was created for a newspaper, so it’s a bit narrower than most text fonts yet all the alternatives are almost exactly the same width. Plantin is even a bit narrower. How do they "avoid its shortcomings"? The second flaw is "italic is mediocre", which I'm not in a position to judge. The third (and main) complaint is "it connotes apathy", and one of th…

If you're upset by Butterick linking to his own font then you're not "all for artists promoting their work". This is ridiculous. Is he supposed to pretend he doesn't make fonts in his book about typography?

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

#84

Post by pavlov » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 2:26 AM UTC

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #82

quietbritishjim wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> By resolution, I mean the original meaning of pixel density per unit area, not the modern usage of total pixel count. Interesting - I wasn't aware "resolution" was ever used this way. PPI (pixels per inch) and "pixel density" are common terms for this now.

In printing, resolution traditionally meant DPI.

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

#85

Post by pavlov » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 2:33 AM UTC

mark-r wrote: post #59

technothrasher wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common wisdom is that serif fonts are easier to read, but most research I've read on the topic show either very small or no readability increase with serif over san-serif fonts. As an example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4612630/

The studies that show an advantage for serif fonts are old, and were done with printed samples. I doubt their conclusions apply to the screen.

I don't think it's obvious either way. Reading on paper vs. high-DPI screens isn't that different.

Text-oriented software like Kindle and Medium default to serif fonts, but I don't know if they have any research to back that up. I suppose Amazon's usability people might have even bothered to look into that.

Of course a large part of this is simply that you read fastest what you read the most.

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

#86

Post by jeffmcmahan » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 2:45 AM UTC

First, as a type nerd, I don't agree that Times is a bad font or that it signals "apathy." When I see nice kerning, judicious leading and tracking in a book design or webpage using a Times font - particularly LaTeX documents using TeX Gyre Termes - I'm generally very pleased.

Second, Plantin is not a "Times alternative," it is a variation on Bembo. Bembo is the opposite of Times ... it is e x p a n s i v e. It's like suggesting black as an alternative to white.

Third, I think the best alternative is actually NYT Imperial.

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

#87

Post by dhosek » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 3:16 AM UTC

ken wrote: post #40

He lists only three 'flaws' with Times New Roman. The first is: > It was created for a newspaper, so it’s a bit narrower than most text fonts yet all the alternatives are almost exactly the same width. Plantin is even a bit narrower. How do they "avoid its shortcomings"? The second flaw is "italic is mediocre", which I'm not in a position to judge. The third (and main) complaint is "it connotes apathy", and one of th…

The italic and bold of Times New Roman are adapted from standard newspaper fonts of the era and have no relation to the Roman which has its roots in Plantin. The whole development of TNR was a bit of a boondoggle and the face was received coolly by The Times when it was finally available for their use.

A big part of the ubiquity of TNR is the fact that Monotype created a large number of extensions to the type family for specialized uses such as mathematics and non-Latin typesetting.

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

#88

Post by threepio » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 3:18 AM UTC

jeffmcmahan wrote: post #86

First, as a type nerd, I don't agree that Times is a bad font or that it signals "apathy." When I see nice kerning, judicious leading and tracking in a book design or webpage using a Times font - particularly LaTeX documents using TeX Gyre Termes - I'm generally very pleased. Second, Plantin is not a "Times alternative," it is a variation on Bembo. Bembo is the opposite of Times ... it is e x p a n s i v e. It's like…

> Plantin is not a "Times alternative," it is a variation on Bembo.

Plantin was released about 15 years before Bembo.

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

#89

Post by dhosek » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 3:19 AM UTC

jeffmcmahan wrote: post #86

First, as a type nerd, I don't agree that Times is a bad font or that it signals "apathy." When I see nice kerning, judicious leading and tracking in a book design or webpage using a Times font - particularly LaTeX documents using TeX Gyre Termes - I'm generally very pleased. Second, Plantin is not a "Times alternative," it is a variation on Bembo. Bembo is the opposite of Times ... it is e x p a n s i v e. It's like…

Plantin is in no way a variation of Bembo. It's based on the designs of Robert Granjon and is the stated starting point for the roman (but not italic or bold) of TNR. Bembo, on the other hand is based on the designs of Aldus Manutius and has a distinctly different character (so to speak).

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

#90

Post by dhosek » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 3:23 AM UTC

quietbritishjim wrote: post #19

pavlov wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

When I first became interested in type, monitors typically had a resolution in the neighborhood of 72–96ppi. My MBP, according to Apple's support site, has a resolution of 226ppi. Back in the 80s I had speculated that 300ppi was a minimum for good typography, but maybe it's my aging eyesight, but I find that what I've got on my laptop is more than sufficient to use most typefaces (and the fact that there's no pixel spread likely helps with the slight lack of resolution), although more subtle designs, like Optima really want a resolution of at least 1200ppi.