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

Why are tech companies making custom typefaces?

arun.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 205 posts

Re: Why are tech companies making custom typefaces?

#161

Post by amyjess »

LanceH wrote: post #110

The primary reason is that with sans serif fonts there are fewer pixels to send. This isn't really a big deal until you get to the size of Google or Facebook and it really starts to add up.

I just wish they'd at least use a humanist sans.

I was really sad when Google switched Android's default font from Droid Sans, a humanist sans (and the direct predecessor of Noto Sans), to Roboto, a neo-grotesk.

Or when Apple went from Myriad to Helevetica Neue and San Francisco.

I just really hate everything about the way neo-grotesk fonts look, and mobile UIs have looked awful to me ever since.

Re: Why are tech companies making custom typefaces?

#162

Post by amyjess »

rangibaby wrote: post #42

Font licensing is rent-seeking bullshit on the level of "Mickey Mouse" copyright extensions and I'm surprised the big foundries have managed to convince everyone that they need to pay for typefaces, which are explicitly copyright-free in every major jurisdiction.

What I find to be rent-seeking bullshit is when licenses impose higher fees on using fonts in PDFs over static images.

Why? Because a pirate can theoretically extract the TTF/OTF from a PDF, so the licensor needs to be paid extra money to compensate for the piracy that PDF usage will bring.

This is such a bullshit 20th-century excuse. It's 2018. Any pirate worth their salt can find any foundry's complete collection on a number of torrent sites. Or for that matter, they can just Google the name of any font and one of the top Google results will be a website illegally offering the font as a free direct download. They don't need to extract a file from a PDF to get their hands on it. There are more efficient ways.

Re: Why are tech companies making custom typefaces?

#163

Post by amyjess »

oneplusone wrote: post #38
executesorder66 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are good looking open source fonts. So I don't think that's true.

I have yet to see an open source font that comes even close to a professional font like Helvetica.

Noto. It feels like having access to an entire professional foundry as a FOSS download.

Though the sans is humanist and not neo-grotesk like Helvetica.

Hell, Noto Sans is available in more weights than Helvetica Neue LT Pro. I've actually found myself wishing that Helvetica Neue LT Pro had a real demi instead of jumping from medium to bold. Noto solves that problem.

Re: Why are tech companies making custom typefaces?

#164

Post by simonh »

lobotryas wrote: post #127
crispyambulance wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sorry. Thanks, but no need for the phony apology. Typefaces, like other graphic elements, might not be felt to the point of the reader explicitly "recognizing" these contributions. Their impact is real albeit subtle. Designers are aware of that but still work really hard anyway.

How can you demonstrate or prove that the impact is “real”?

There’s a huge amount of research into this sort of thing funded by advertisers and marketers.

Re: Why are tech companies making custom typefaces?

#165

Post by crispyambulance »

Green_man wrote: post #143
misterbwong wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're confusing real with measurable.

Alternatively, how are we supposed to know it's real if it's not measurable?

A designer's work is, in large part, sensory and thus "measurable".

It might very well be subjective and difficult to put into words, but even if one is a strict positivist, that's acceptable.

Re: Why are tech companies making custom typefaces?

#166

Post by mark-r »

spectrum1234 wrote: post #118

Are there not open source fonts? Seems like this ecosystem would be very large, since so many designers want to enhance their portfolio. Basically any font should be a commodity. What am I missing?

You're missing two things. First, the history of typography - fonts were not always free to copy and use when there were physical parts involved. Second, fonts are something that take a lot of work to put together, especially when done well. Most people can't devote that kind of effort for free.

That said, open source fonts are definitely on the rise. Many people don't have a problem using a font that isn't quite as refined as the classics, and some enlightened companies are bankrolling development.

Re: Why are tech companies making custom typefaces?

#167

Post by LanceH »

amyjess wrote: post #161
LanceH wrote: post #110

The primary reason is that with sans serif fonts there are fewer pixels to send. This isn't really a big deal until you get to the size of Google or Facebook and it really starts to add up.

I just wish they'd at least use a humanist sans. I was really sad when Google switched Android's default font from Droid Sans, a humanist sans (and the direct predecessor of Noto Sans), to Roboto, a neo-grotesk. Or when Apple went from Myriad to Helevetica Neue and San Francisco. I just really hate everything about the way neo-grotesk fonts look, and mobile UIs have looked awful to me ever since.

I think for Apple is was more about it being organic and locally sourced.

Re: Why are tech companies making custom typefaces?

#168

Post by rleigh »

mark-r wrote: post #146
rleigh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to cater for both nowadays, I think. I recently upgraded from a 26" 16:10 1920×1200 display to a similarly-sized 16:9 4K display. I ran them side-by-side for a few days to compare. The difference in text quality was night and day. After using the 4K for a week the quality of the old display looked terrible: blurry and unreadable. Like going back to 800×600! I sold it; I saw no value in it as a secondary disp…

I only wish 4K was offered in 16:10, or just that 16:10 was more popular in general. I'll be hanging on to my 1920x1200 until it dies.

Yes, it is annoying. However, it's not as bad as I thought it might be. Since the display is quite big in size, I generally use one window on each half of the display and I don't feel I'm really missing out on vertical space too much. The DPI is sufficiently high that I don't find the horizontal size too small either, which was certainly the case with half of a 1920×1200 display previously.

On the other hand, it's sufficiently big that I don't generally need such a large space. I could have gone with a physically smaller 4K display with a higher DPI and still been very happy.

Re: Why are tech companies making custom typefaces?

#169

Post by jakobegger »

michaelt wrote: post #40
Rotten194 wrote: post #2

I don't think most tech companies actually want a completely custom, radically new typeface. They want a designer to trace Helvetica so they don't have to pay licensing fees.

The article contains an image [1] showing several tech-company-funded fonts side-by-side. The fonts have some differences, but I'd have to agree with you the changes are so subtle it's hard to believe they resulted from an attempt to make a _radically_ new typeface. [1] https://www.arun.is/blog/custom-typefaces/unique_typefaces_m...

That image is a bit misleading. Those fonts all have a very different feel in the UI.

For example, I never really liked when Apple switched from Lucida Grande as the main UI Font to Helvetica, and I was very relieved when they replaced Helvetica with San Francisco.

I think San Francisco is a decent UI font -- it's much better than Helvetica. I don't particularly like it, but at least it doesn't annoy me.

The differences are subtle. If you show me short strings I probably wouldn't know them apart, but changing the font for the whole UI has a big effect.

Re: Why are tech companies making custom typefaces?

#170

Post by eiaoa »

rleigh wrote: post #168
mark-r wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only wish 4K was offered in 16:10, or just that 16:10 was more popular in general. I'll be hanging on to my 1920x1200 until it dies.

Yes, it is annoying. However, it's not as bad as I thought it might be. Since the display is quite big in size, I generally use one window on each half of the display and I don't feel I'm really missing out on vertical space too much. The DPI is sufficiently high that I don't find the horizontal size too small either, which was certainly the case with half of a 1920×1200 display previously. On the other hand, it's su…

My main problem with 16:9 is how obscenely long they are. I use my monitors to do work, not watch movies, so I have a lot more need for vertical real-estate.

Tilting them on their side doesn't help, because they're far too narrow that way.

Post reply on HN