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

Why I created Comic Sans

connare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 137 posts

Re: Why I created Comic Sans

#111

Post by PeterisP »

Surio wrote: post #84
randomchars wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think that was a conscious choice. My impression is that people print much less today than ten years ago.

Oh dear, this is turning into one of those "You say Tomahto, I say tomato" kind of discussion.... even though I did not intend it to be. Personally, I think there is no point splitting hairs over whether they goofed up or whether it was intended... MS-Word as a product is intended for the "write it, and then print it" market (whether the actual printing happens or not is another thing altogether), and for that demogr…

The parent poster seems to imply that Word nowadays is not intended for the "write it, and then print it" market anymore - while it was aimed for that a dozen years ago, currently MS is deliberately targeting it more towards creating non-printable documents.

I.e., it's not the design choice that's wrong, but the assumptions about who Word is now intended for.

Re: Why I created Comic Sans

#112

Post by Surio »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #110
drewmck wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Studies show kids prefer Comic Sans for screen reading vs. common serif and sans-serif fonts (namely, Arial, Times, Courier). They prefer it for both appearance and readability: http://t.co/P3ebZjUi So, if you're designing for kids, these things seem to matter less. Perhaps there's a better alternative not explored (marker felt, etc.) but there are use cases for these typefaces that adults disagree with for technical…

The study you linked to found that kids read text set in Arial and Comic Sans at the same speed. The kids did indicate they found Comic Sans most attractive, but their options were limited to Times, Courier, Arial and Comic Sans. I'm willing to bet that if Comic Sans had been substituted by any other cartoon or paintbrush font, the result would've been the same. Because kids can't read at high speeds yet, sans serif…

I use Gill Sans on Presentations! Interesting bit of trivia/factoid about Gill Sans!

Re: Why I created Comic Sans

#113

Post by Surio »

PeterisP wrote: post #111
Surio wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh dear, this is turning into one of those "You say Tomahto, I say tomato" kind of discussion.... even though I did not intend it to be. Personally, I think there is no point splitting hairs over whether they goofed up or whether it was intended... MS-Word as a product is intended for the "write it, and then print it" market (whether the actual printing happens or not is another thing altogether), and for that demogr…

The parent poster seems to imply that Word nowadays is not intended for the "write it, and then print it" market anymore - while it was aimed for that a dozen years ago, currently MS is deliberately targeting it more towards creating non-printable documents. I.e., it's not the design choice that's wrong, but the assumptions about who Word is now intended for.

Not sure you read my reply? (note the italics part below)

>> MS-Word as a product is intended for the "write it, and then print it" market (whether the actual printing happens or not is another thing altogether), and for that demographic, the typographic convention is Serif for body text

Same convention holds true for typesetting packages like Quark/InDesign/LaTeX, etc. The established convention for documents cranked out is what I mentioned earlier... So regardless of parent poster's/your opinions [0] on this topic, the choice is mixed up because body text ought to be Serif (and heading something else if needed).

[0] it's not the design choice that's wrong, but the assumptions about who Word is now intended for

Re: Why I created Comic Sans

#114

Post by pbhjpbhj »

jammmuel wrote: post #74
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which font would you have used?

Something with more gravitas. Palatino?

Zapf makes a mean font. IIRC I used his Chancery on my wedding invitations. Pity Sistina is all-caps otherwise that would have been apposite.

Re: Why I created Comic Sans

#115

Post by wfunction »

NoPiece wrote: post #14
simonsarris wrote: post #7

Comic Sans as a font needs no defense. Just like a good band with bad fans, we don't balk at Comic Sans, we balk at the people who use comic sans for inappropriate things. (Or to use a more computery analogy, there's nothing wrong with capital letters or all-caps, but some users use them inappropriately). City memo minutes should not be distributed in Comic Sans. Wedding invitations should probably not be in Comic Sa…

There is definitely an internet lynch mob mentality on this even though the inappropriate use critique is spot on. You'd have to be a brave designer to use it, even in an befitting way. Apps like Balsamiq have dropped it and subbed in look-a-likes just so people have cover to say it isn't Comic Sans. http://www.balsamiq.com/products/mockups/font

My professors used it on many lecture slides... very few people until it was pointed out to them, and once that happened then they couldn't focus!

Re: Why I created Comic Sans

#117

Post by SourPatch »

coldtea wrote: post #81
lloeki wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found the last example pretty convincing: I did not recognise Chalkboard, and the first part seemed readable to me to the point I said myself "Well, Comic Sans is not so bad finally" ... and then the last line instantly jumped at me due to kerning and baseline. Comic Sans glyphs seem to each stand on their own, unable to keep themselves together to form a word. Chalkboard is far from perfect (see k-e kern) but it i…

> Comic Sans glyphs seem to each stand on their own, unable to keep themselves together to form a word. The case against Comic Sans in undue context is due to the funny glyphs, while the case against Comic Sans vs other comic fonts is due not to the glyphs but to the whitespace around them. This whitespace and keming problems though might add to the naive appeal of the font. Like, for example, bad perspective and dis…

> keming

Is that a typographical pun?

Re: Why I created Comic Sans

#119

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

neya wrote: post #5

On a side note, Comic Sans was used in the (possibly early) Samsung Galaxy phones for quite a while in their UI (Settings etc.)

A UI that were terrible and that the Samsung management spent ages comparing to the iPhone UI and pointing out how terrible it was.

Re: Why I created Comic Sans

#120

Post by PeterisP »

Surio wrote: post #113
PeterisP wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent poster seems to imply that Word nowadays is not intended for the "write it, and then print it" market anymore - while it was aimed for that a dozen years ago, currently MS is deliberately targeting it more towards creating non-printable documents. I.e., it's not the design choice that's wrong, but the assumptions about who Word is now intended for.

Not sure you read my reply? (note the italics part below) >> MS-Word as a product is intended for the "write it, and then print it" market ( whether the actual printing happens or not is another thing altogether ), and for that demographic, the typographic convention is Serif for body text Same convention holds true for typesetting packages like Quark/InDesign/LaTeX, etc. The established convention for documents cran…

I read your reply, but what I mean is exactly contradicting your statements: I'm saying that right now MS-Word is NOT a product intended (by its makers) for that market and the "same established convention" simply does not hold true anymore for MS Office.

And the evidence for this position is this design choice made by Microsoft. I'm treating it not as a mistake, but as part of proof that they've consciously chosen screen-viewing instead of printing as their goal, and applied that convention for their apps.

What evidence is there that the current MS Word is aimed at printing primarily, and because of that its "body text ought to be Serif" ? It has been aimed at printing a dozen years ago, sure, but why you're reasoning that it still is now?

Post reply on HN