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

Choosing the perfect typeface

cucumbertown.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 40 posts

Re: Choosing the perfect typeface

#31

Post by L_Rahman »

generj wrote: post #30
L_Rahman wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal favorite is Mike Butterick's Practical Typography. He's a programmer, typographer, and lawyer and the book is entirely web based. They're static pages generated by code he wrote in Racket, a language in the Lisp family. For a quick introduction check out a small section of the book: Typography in Ten Minutes http://practicaltypography.com/typography-in-ten-minutes.htm... The book in full: http://practical…

Practical Typography is excellent. Excellent. I think he makes some hyperbolic statements at times, but Butterick as a whole is very accessible. The only annoyance was ignoring Butterick's plugs for his personal typefaces. I was very happy to buy a copy of his typography for lawyers book for a friend as recompense for this resource.

I was actually okay with the plugs for his own typefaces. Since the book was free, I thought it was fair that he suggest people buy his typefaces to pay for the free product especially since many will be taking his advice to create products that are intended to make money.

But yes, an absolutely accessible and excellent resource. I've been sending to links to various pages and chapters to my friends in the hopes that they'll choose better typefaces after reading.

Re: Choosing the perfect typeface

#32

Post by ChikkaChiChi »

anandgrafiti wrote: post #17
ChikkaChiChi wrote: post #12

Typefaces are meaningless. Now that I have your attention I'll blow your mind: A good typeface on a bad site does nothing but polish the turd. Designers that obsess over typefaces also generally give equal care to spacing and layout that when all put together makes for a great site. Flipboard would never have chosen Comic Sans as a font and people that pushed Helvetica Neue would never use dancing chipmunk gifs in th…

True, you should not think of your redesign/design thinking about type. That will be a disaster. But somewhere along the way you need to start looking into the options available and the personality you want to deliver though your designs. Psst! I never get people's hatred for comic sans..its a typeface designed for a purpose. Now its not anyones mistake that Microsoft started packaging it with the OS and the HR depar…

It's a low hanging fruit. That and it's also immediately recognizable so you are immediately ready to critique everything else.

Re: Choosing the perfect typeface

#33

Post by huhtenberg »

adwf wrote: post #7

Interesting read, but I still think that people spend faaaaaaaar too much time thinking about typefaces. I just don't think they make as much of an impact on the page as people think they do. At first glance, I thought the "elite" and "subtle" were both the same face, and likewise with the "informal"/"playful". It's only because they were blown up to a large size that I actually started noticing a tiny difference. Ma…

You are wrong.

Even if you cannot readily quantify the difference between, say, Roboto and Source Sans, the difference is there and your perception of either is different. The difference might be slight, but it is sufficient to skew your "2 second" impression in the wrong (or the right) direction. For example, even though Roboto and SS are almost the same typeface, Roboto in regular weight renders much heavier than Source Sans, so if you are to use for a product that is meant to exude lightness and airness, it would work worse than if you were to use SS.

Things like overall feel and the "rhythm" of a typeface take an effort to notice, quantify and rationalize, but they are of an UTMOST perceptive importance. Ever noticed the quirky lowercase "a" in Proxima Nova? Ever noticed how that "a" just steals the show if it appears in a sizes larger than 16px? No? Just pay closer attention next time ;) The same goes for HF&J's Whitney - it looks like just another sans-serif font on the surface, but it just feels friendlier. Try and quantify that (Kotaku uses it, go check it out).

First impression is hugely important and a typeface choice plays a very big part in it. Don't make a mistake of underestimating it.

Re: Choosing the perfect typeface

#34

Post by ajross »

huhtenberg wrote: post #33
adwf wrote: post #7

Interesting read, but I still think that people spend faaaaaaaar too much time thinking about typefaces. I just don't think they make as much of an impact on the page as people think they do. At first glance, I thought the "elite" and "subtle" were both the same face, and likewise with the "informal"/"playful". It's only because they were blown up to a large size that I actually started noticing a tiny difference. Ma…

You are wrong. Even if you cannot readily quantify the difference between, say, Roboto and Source Sans, the difference is there and your perception of either is different. The difference might be slight, but it is sufficient to skew your "2 second" impression in the wrong (or the right) direction. For example, even though Roboto and SS are almost the same typeface, Roboto in regular weight renders much heavier than S…

Has that actually been studied? I mean, is there a quantifiable "2 second impression" that can be measured as different between Roboto and Source Sans? I see this kind of argument made all the time by afficionados of some aesthetic or another (microbrew fans, car nuts, etc...) and invariably the science ends up showing that e.g. wine quality can't be measured objectively at all.

My point here isn't (ahem) "You are wrong.", but more that I think you need to get some perspective about the distinction between strongly held opinion and objective fact.

Re: Choosing the perfect typeface

#35

Post by vdaniuk »

anandgrafiti wrote: post #16
adwf wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes very good point. Particularly with tablets, the use-case they are frequently replacing is that of an old-fashioned print magazine. I did just test turning off webfonts on Medium and I still honestly can't see any huge problem with my default system typeface. This could possibly be because I have nice defaults, but at the same time, I think the good readability of Medium is far more about the overall style/layout…

Good typography is often invisible. I clearly feel far more elegance with the original typefaces:) Its a subtle thing, something that cannot be quantified. Ofcource, content is the king, but in a world where everyone can create good content, how well will you present your content will be key.

Sure it can be quantified using the same instruments growth hackers use daily. You can measure time on page, click through rate, conversion rate and anything else you wish. I am sure that the difference in the metrics for the A/B test version that use fonts from GP post will be negligeble.

Re: Choosing the perfect typeface

#36

Post by vdaniuk »

ajross wrote: post #34
huhtenberg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wrong. Even if you cannot readily quantify the difference between, say, Roboto and Source Sans, the difference is there and your perception of either is different. The difference might be slight, but it is sufficient to skew your "2 second" impression in the wrong (or the right) direction. For example, even though Roboto and SS are almost the same typeface, Roboto in regular weight renders much heavier than S…

Has that actually been studied? I mean, is there a quantifiable "2 second impression" that can be measured as different between Roboto and Source Sans? I see this kind of argument made all the time by afficionados of some aesthetic or another (microbrew fans, car nuts, etc...) and invariably the science ends up showing that e.g. wine quality can't be measured objectively at all. My point here isn't (ahem) "You are wr…

Yep, there is quite a problem with that. I've recently was looking for proof that Golden Ratio aesthetical qualities are indeed the global optima for at least some categories of objects. I've found nothing.

Re: Choosing the perfect typeface

#37

Post by pikewood »

ajross wrote: post #34
huhtenberg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wrong. Even if you cannot readily quantify the difference between, say, Roboto and Source Sans, the difference is there and your perception of either is different. The difference might be slight, but it is sufficient to skew your "2 second" impression in the wrong (or the right) direction. For example, even though Roboto and SS are almost the same typeface, Roboto in regular weight renders much heavier than S…

Has that actually been studied? I mean, is there a quantifiable "2 second impression" that can be measured as different between Roboto and Source Sans? I see this kind of argument made all the time by afficionados of some aesthetic or another (microbrew fans, car nuts, etc...) and invariably the science ends up showing that e.g. wine quality can't be measured objectively at all. My point here isn't (ahem) "You are wr…

It would be interesting if someone set up a test similar to Harvard's Implicit Association Test to see if this is true.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/user/agg/blindspot/tab...

Re: Choosing the perfect typeface

#38

Post by adwf »

huhtenberg wrote: post #33
adwf wrote: post #7

Interesting read, but I still think that people spend faaaaaaaar too much time thinking about typefaces. I just don't think they make as much of an impact on the page as people think they do. At first glance, I thought the "elite" and "subtle" were both the same face, and likewise with the "informal"/"playful". It's only because they were blown up to a large size that I actually started noticing a tiny difference. Ma…

You are wrong. Even if you cannot readily quantify the difference between, say, Roboto and Source Sans, the difference is there and your perception of either is different. The difference might be slight, but it is sufficient to skew your "2 second" impression in the wrong (or the right) direction. For example, even though Roboto and SS are almost the same typeface, Roboto in regular weight renders much heavier than S…

Perhaps. But speaking as a person from a physics background, a difference you can't quantify is a difference that may as well not exist...

I went back and checked the Medium website with a handful of different typefaces on the body text, and whilst I could tell a large difference in readability between the default (ff-tisa-web-pro?) and my systems DejaVu Sans, I honestly couldn't tell the difference the default and Georgia (serif) (screenshots in another comment below).

Which brings me back to my point, that the typeface is highly overrated in importance on a page. The choice of font-size, Sans/Serif, line-height/width, etc. all play a far more important role when it comes to readability.

I will admit that I do come from a strong science/programming background, so sometimes the more arty, design side of things escape me!

Re: Choosing the perfect typeface

#39

Post by cpeterso »

vdaniuk wrote: post #36
ajross wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has that actually been studied? I mean, is there a quantifiable "2 second impression" that can be measured as different between Roboto and Source Sans? I see this kind of argument made all the time by afficionados of some aesthetic or another (microbrew fans, car nuts, etc...) and invariably the science ends up showing that e.g. wine quality can't be measured objectively at all. My point here isn't (ahem) "You are wr…

Yep, there is quite a problem with that. I've recently was looking for proof that Golden Ratio aesthetical qualities are indeed the global optima for at least some categories of objects. I've found nothing.

The Golden Radio is numerological nonsense. There is no evidence supporting some inherit beauty of the Golden Ratio.

Re: Choosing the perfect typeface

#40

Post by huhtenberg »

vdaniuk wrote: post #36
ajross wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has that actually been studied? I mean, is there a quantifiable "2 second impression" that can be measured as different between Roboto and Source Sans? I see this kind of argument made all the time by afficionados of some aesthetic or another (microbrew fans, car nuts, etc...) and invariably the science ends up showing that e.g. wine quality can't be measured objectively at all. My point here isn't (ahem) "You are wr…

Yep, there is quite a problem with that. I've recently was looking for proof that Golden Ratio aesthetical qualities are indeed the global optima for at least some categories of objects. I've found nothing.

There's at least one published study with a very large sampling base. I know because I was as skeptical as you are, then I saw the study mentioned in some design book, looked it up and it did in fact exist. I'll try and find the name, but I'm not sure if I still got the book where it was mentioned.
Post reply on HN