41–50 of 205 posts
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.
There are good looking open source fonts. So I don't think that's true.
This is one of those times where as a working creative that frequently reads Hacker News I straight up face palm. I have to imagine a lot of these commenters would say the same in regards to any sort of subjective artistic choice that isn't purely optimized for efficiency. I would like to leave you with a quote by Briano Eno from a really good lecture he gave several years ago that I hope can provide a jumping off po…
Actually the content of the article makes this comment slightly unwarranted (unless I'm misreading the tone). The author has described, quite well, on how typography isn't about just subjective artistic choice but largely its functional implications. Oh and there is a reason why a lot of engineering folks have critical opinions about this. Some of us have worked with designers in the past that simply do not take the…
Unfortunately, "subjective" is often used as a dirty word especially around here where some folks even claim to prefer html stripped of all styling. As you pointed out, there is a lot of thought and sweat that goes into the creation of a typeface. The artistic aspects deserve respect and attention not just from the practitioners but also from their users.
I think it's actually a good thing that there's a proliferation of typefaces. If a large company, wanting to avoid millions of dollars in fees to license a typeface, can pay a designer to create a new one that's a good thing. Even if the typeface is created for reasons of brand vanity, it puts someone to work and helps to further the development of typography in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are good looking open source fonts. So I don't think that's true.
Just a nitpick: open source does not mean free to use.
This is one of those times where as a working creative that frequently reads Hacker News I straight up face palm. I have to imagine a lot of these commenters would say the same in regards to any sort of subjective artistic choice that isn't purely optimized for efficiency. I would like to leave you with a quote by Briano Eno from a really good lecture he gave several years ago that I hope can provide a jumping off po…
Actually the content of the article makes this comment slightly unwarranted (unless I'm misreading the tone). The author has described, quite well, on how typography isn't about just subjective artistic choice but largely its functional implications. Oh and there is a reason why a lot of engineering folks have critical opinions about this. Some of us have worked with designers in the past that simply do not take the…
That doesn't really hold up. The cost of developing a custom typeface can easily run from hundreds of thousands into millions of dollars.
It can take a huge amount of time and energy from within the company to commission and direct a large creative project.
Typeface licensing costs are a very small proportion of what most companies will spend on brand marketing.
And saving money on a small line-item isn't exactly a recipe for getting promoted.
Announcing that your shiny new typeface will save the company lots of money is, more likely, a post-purchase rationalisation that helps make everyone feel good about the investment.
If the driver was primarily to reduce licensing costs, there are some great alternatives:
1. Use one of the many terrific free and open source typefaces that will cover all the languages and use cases you really need (like Noto or Open Sans). Or even better, system fonts.
Jeremiah Shoaf has a terrific curated list here: https://www.typewolf.com/google-fonts
2. Threaten to use a free alternative and then negotiate a better deal on licensing
3. Go ahead and use your favourite typeface without declaring the full usage so it is unlicensed or under-licensed. This saves a lot of money and is actually pretty common.
In the past I've interviewed designers and creative teams about how they choose and decide to license typefaces. They talk about things like:
* wanting to create exactly the right aesthetic for their brand (i.e. I can only be satisfied by something that doesn't yet exist)
* finding usage-based licensing complex as it creates non-financial costs in terms of understanding, tracking and justifying the licensing costs. That all gets much easier if you own the typeface.
* reducing the risk of inadvertent copyright infringement and subsequent reputational damage
* feeling in control by owning the IP (and therefore not dependent on any third party in future)
This is one of those times where as a working creative that frequently reads Hacker News I straight up face palm. I have to imagine a lot of these commenters would say the same in regards to any sort of subjective artistic choice that isn't purely optimized for efficiency. I would like to leave you with a quote by Briano Eno from a really good lecture he gave several years ago that I hope can provide a jumping off po…
"The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful."
I definitely see beauty in music, science, typefaces and many other aspects of the universe.
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.