41–50 of 52 posts
Does this font simply ... Not look good to anyone else? It is visually kind of uncomfortable to behold. Maybe it's because it's a bit blurry feeling. It sort of suggests to me that there's a lot going on with typeface design that we take for granted. Edit: on closer inspection, the letter forms are kind of all over the place. The humps on the 'm' are lopsided, letter heights are sort of random. I think it's an intere…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also reminds me a bit of what text looks like after multiple rounds of photocopying. Like the handouts we'd get in grade school.
And the smell of weird, purple mimeograph[1] ink. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimeograph
[2]: I just wanted to add the most unnecessary footnote formatting possible as a kindness, so yours would no longer hold the crown as worst
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also reminds me a bit of what text looks like after multiple rounds of photocopying. Like the handouts we'd get in grade school.
And the smell of weird, purple mimeograph[1] ink. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimeograph
That combined with the magic of "Wow! Copies?!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the smell of weird, purple mimeograph[1] ink. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimeograph
[2] [2]: I just wanted to add the most unnecessary footnote formatting possible as a kindness, so yours would no longer hold the crown as worst
I've been called out previously here for having unknowingly introduced some undefined terms to readers, and which they found to be perplexing.
And I took that to heart, because I don't want my words to be perplexing. I instead want them to be clear and easily understood.
In my corner of the world, I haven't held a mimeographed document in my hands for ~35 years. I found it reasonable to assume that a non-zero amount of people here might find the term to be unfamiliar.
So I provided definition of the term on the basis that it may be unknown to some readers, and that more information is better than inadequate information.
In this instance I would have preferred to use hyperlinked text for visual brevity, but that's not a thing on HN. The normal and accepted style on HN consists instead of using footnotes.
And at this point, generating footnotes is nearly entirely muscle memory for me. So a footnote (with a URL) was included.
Thank you for your attention on this matter, fsckboy. I'm pleased to discover that you've found my footnote to be so unusually compelling.
What I really love about both of them is that they instantly give you the impression of a real print made with real ink. Especially Averia - which makes sense, since it was averaged from all sorts of different fonts - has a lot of, for the lack of better word, excess fat on it. Something that may happen accidently while pressing "precise" font letter on soft paper.
I've used Averia (Serif Libre, specifically) for at least a decade as my primary font for email, web pages in 'reader' mode, writing long-form text, etc. I find it extremely legible, and even calming. Ironically, I've been a typographer for decades, both for print and online. Averia might seem an odd choice for someone intimately familiar with typographic theory/history and the vast catalog of possible fonts. But the…
Somehow I was not aware of Averia and used Old Timey for exact same reasons in the past.
On the other hand, someone here mentioned "Lato", which to me looks exactly how two robots would write holiday postcards to each other.
This is an experiment from 2011 in which the author produced a font by averaging all the fonts on their system. I'm reposting it here because I noticed that this looks a lot like the uncanny valley produced when an image AI tries to make text, which makes perfect sense: it's a statistical average of fonts.
I'd love to see the results for the same process used on monospace fonts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[2] [2]: I just wanted to add the most unnecessary footnote formatting possible as a kindness, so yours would no longer hold the crown as worst
That's clever, but: I've been called out previously here for having unknowingly introduced some undefined terms to readers, and which they found to be perplexing. And I took that to heart, because I don't want my words to be perplexing. I instead want them to be clear and easily understood. In my corner of the world, I haven't held a mimeographed document in my hands for ~35 years. I found it reasonable to assume tha…
i wasn't criticizing putting in a link; just put it in, it doesn't need layers of boiler plate [in this instance]
like, if i use the word sesquipedalian https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sesquipedalian
[in this instance] the square brackets add nothing but noise