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

Public Sans – A strong, neutral typeface for text or display

public-sans.digital.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 245 posts

Re: Public Sans – A strong, neutral typeface for text or display

#211

Post by adamstac »

eddietejeda wrote: post #81
siavosh wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious to hear if your group is still well supported budget wise?

Although we are part of the government, we operate as a business unit that must pay for itself to exist. To do this, we have to charge other agencies for our services. My group is "cost-recoverable," meaning, that we are longer losing money and can reinvest back into the product. You will notice our Github activity picked up recently and even more significant changes are coming soon. So, I'd say we are in the best sh…

Eddie is this something you think would be interesting to talk about on The Changelog ~> https://changelog.com/podcast

We've talked about 18F with Hillary Hartley and Aidan Feldman in the past here ~> https://changelog.com/podcast/230

Get in touch at editors@changelog.com if you're interested!

Re: Public Sans – A strong, neutral typeface for text or display

#212

Post by Someone1234 »

majewsky wrote: post #207
Ephiiz wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with you that most if not all sites should offer some sort of no JavaScript fallback, the development resources required to offer such a thing is just generally unpractical when it's such a small minority of users. Government or not, they still have to choose between spending their limited departmental resources on an extremely small minority, or the greater userbase as a whole.

By that same argument, we don't need to worry about accessibility.

Disabled users don't get a choice, that's their lives. People who voluntarily disable a core browser component do. Apples and oranges. You should (and legally need to) worry about accessibility.

Re: Public Sans – A strong, neutral typeface for text or display

#213

Post by zbentley »

dragonwriter wrote: post #91
optymizer wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. The way I understand the "appeal to worse problems" fallacy is: "Y is worse than X, so why work on X if we haven't solved Y yet?" In this case, I see X as a solved problem (perfectly appropriate Sans Serif typefaces exist) and Y as unsolved, whereas the fallacy treats both X and Y as unsolved.

So its appeal to worse problems masked by false dichotomy (solvedness is a continuum, not a binary state)?

I'm not the parent, but now you have a disagreement (it's not solved; solvedness is a continuum) not a fallacy.

I don't think it's in good faith to assume that because parent said "perfectly appropriate Sans Serif typefaces exist" that the implication is that solvedness is a binary; the implication could just has easily been that the problem is sufficiently solved so as to not matter, which is a disagreement about where to draw a line, not an abuse of logic.

Re: Public Sans – A strong, neutral typeface for text or display

#214

Post by amalcon »

benbristow wrote: post #148
carapace wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As one of "those who have voluntarily disabled JavaScript" this comment is pretty disappointing.

If you disable a tool which you know is used to build many websites nowadays then you really should expect a deprecated experience. You're in the minority and honestly I don't know why you should expect web developers to cater for you.

It's kind of absurd that just using the web the way it was designed is now considered "catering to you".

Re: Public Sans – A strong, neutral typeface for text or display

#215

Post by benbristow »

amalcon wrote: post #214
benbristow wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you disable a tool which you know is used to build many websites nowadays then you really should expect a deprecated experience. You're in the minority and honestly I don't know why you should expect web developers to cater for you.

It's kind of absurd that just using the web the way it was designed is now considered "catering to you".

Browsers don’t have JavaScript disabled by default. You’re going out your way to disable it. The modern web expects JavaScript to be enabled.

Re: Public Sans – A strong, neutral typeface for text or display

#216

Post by [deleted] »

cheerlessbog wrote: post #184
jimktrains2 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because things like blogger and Google groups shouldn't require js to just view text. There is a large, large, enormously large body of work out there that doesn't need JavaScript to achieve its goal like showing text or images, but are more-or-leas broken without JavaScript. That's the tragedy. I don't expect a web app, such as Google maps or Google docs to work without js, but I should be able to read blogs and new…

Why don't you want to run JS, on a site you trust, that has no ads?

[deleted]

Re: Public Sans – A strong, neutral typeface for text or display

#217

Post by mmmrk »

canada_dry wrote: post #170
taffer wrote: post #33

I think this is really beautiful.

> I think this is really beautiful. Different strokes (literally). I quite dislike it. In my mind this font lacks symmetry and consistency needed to be easily readable. Especially how the curved base appears to drop below the flat base! It hurts my eyes.

You mean how e.g. the base of "o" drops below the base of "r"? That's standard optical compensation because if you make them level, the curved base seems to sit higher than the flat base. The amount of compensation needed differs depending on point size.

Re: Public Sans – A strong, neutral typeface for text or display

#218

Post by kinos »

cheerlessbog wrote: post #184
jimktrains2 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because things like blogger and Google groups shouldn't require js to just view text. There is a large, large, enormously large body of work out there that doesn't need JavaScript to achieve its goal like showing text or images, but are more-or-leas broken without JavaScript. That's the tragedy. I don't expect a web app, such as Google maps or Google docs to work without js, but I should be able to read blogs and new…

Why don't you want to run JS, on a site you trust, that has no ads?

Because its slow?

Re: Public Sans – A strong, neutral typeface for text or display

#219

Post by amalcon »

benbristow wrote: post #215
amalcon wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of absurd that just using the web the way it was designed is now considered "catering to you".

Browsers don’t have JavaScript disabled by default. You’re going out your way to disable it. The modern web expects JavaScript to be enabled.

Some do, and you're also going out of your way to require javascript from your site that just displays documents.

The "modern web" is dramatically worse (slower, more compute intensive, less consistent, less secure) than the web used to be. This is mostly because of the tendency to force javascript into places where it was never necessary.

Re: Public Sans – A strong, neutral typeface for text or display

#220

Post by earthboundkid »

fanf2 wrote: post #162
sanderjd wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because ~no users curate their fonts, and making your site look better for the ~all users who don't curate their own fonts is the better more pragmatic choice by such a large margin that it isn't really worth much thought. Does this negatively affect your experience? Can't you override fonts if you want to? Edit: note, I'm not the person the question was directed at, and have no connection to the federalist project a…

Web fonts are very slow

If you use link rel preload and font-display: optional, it's fine.
Post reply on HN