Shouldn't public documents by the government use a free and libre font? In fact, the mentioned Public Sans developed by the US federal government seems to be a great option, as it actually distinguishes the lowercase l and the uppercase I, something that, ironically, all suggested sans-serif alternatives fail to do.
Times New American: A Tale of Two Fonts
11–20 of 184 posts
Re: Times New American: A Tale of Two Fonts
#12Using either Calibri or Times New Roman makes it look like you did not put any thought into your brand and chose the default in Microsoft Word. The State department probably has certain constraints (i.e. they likely have to choose one of the fonts that ships with Microsoft Word, and possibly a subset of that that also ships on macOS), but they could definitely choose better than the default. I find the narrow serif t…
It’s the US government, and it could easily develop their own Liberty- or Freedom-type if the current administration wanted to leave their own mark.
Re: Times New American: A Tale of Two Fonts
#13Re: Times New American: A Tale of Two Fonts
#14Using either Calibri or Times New Roman makes it look like you did not put any thought into your brand and chose the default in Microsoft Word. The State department probably has certain constraints (i.e. they likely have to choose one of the fonts that ships with Microsoft Word, and possibly a subset of that that also ships on macOS), but they could definitely choose better than the default. I find the narrow serif t…
It’s the US government, and it could easily develop their own Liberty- or Freedom-type if the current administration wanted to leave their own mark.
Re: Times New American: A Tale of Two Fonts
#15Wow, the sample shows that 15 point Calibri on official government documents was truly awful. In software when we make a mistake that causes some production issue the best first action is almost always to roll back. Maybe 14 pt TNR isn't the best, but rolling back to it is a defensible decision.
Re: Times New American: A Tale of Two Fonts
#16At some point in the past I read that serif fonts are better for readability, as the supports at the base of the letters form a line and help the eye stay “on track”. This is never mentioned in TFA, so I assume it’s an urban legend? Personally I much prefer serif fonts when reading longer texts.
Re: Times New American: A Tale of Two Fonts
#17At some point in the past I read that serif fonts are better for readability, as the supports at the base of the letters form a line and help the eye stay “on track”. This is never mentioned in TFA, so I assume it’s an urban legend? Personally I much prefer serif fonts when reading longer texts.
I was once taught that serif fonts are better in print, and sans-serif is better on a screen.
Re: Times New American: A Tale of Two Fonts
#18[flagged]
Re: Times New American: A Tale of Two Fonts
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fraktur.
> Martin Bormann issued a circular (the "normal type decree") to all public offices which declared Fraktur (and its corollary, the Sütterlin-based handwriting) to be Judenlettern (Jewish letters) and prohibited their further use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraktur I don't know if you meant to invoke pro/anti-Nazi associations with this typeface but it's unfortunate that such a fantastic lettering style carries aro…
Why is that poisonous? It sounds like Fraktur was rejected by Nazi Germany which isn’t a bad thing at all.
Re: Times New American: A Tale of Two Fonts
#20At some point in the past I read that serif fonts are better for readability, as the supports at the base of the letters form a line and help the eye stay “on track”. This is never mentioned in TFA, so I assume it’s an urban legend? Personally I much prefer serif fonts when reading longer texts.
I was once taught that serif fonts are better in print, and sans-serif is better on a screen.
This was definitely true in the days before hi-res screens and good anti-aliasing, simply because the serifs get lost or become noise in lower-resolution settings. It’s probably less true today.
Of course, in terms of accessibility, there are any number of reasons why someone might prefer to read content in any number of typefaces. Certain typefaces are better for folks with dyslexia. Others may be better for certain folks with ADHD. People with low vision may just prefer a larger typeface.
We have these amazing machines we’ve invented that can display the same text in any number of different ways. At this point, it seems ridiculous to need to mandate a specific typeface for electronic usage. Sure, pick a well-regarded default, but if we want to mandate something, it should be that software provides tools to allow users to adjust textual elements of documents they are reading to suit their own needs.