51–60 of 107 posts
Ok, it is a font alright. To me, it looks exactly as all the other fonts I have on my OS already, but I guess that's just how it is if you are not in the font bubble.
“neutral aesthetic” Subdued, muted and neutral seems to be very much “in” at the moment. On one hand it definitely gives us highly readable, usable interfaces and text. But I do miss the chaos and vibrance of the early web. Modern web is starting to look really washed out.
Flat design is the more sucky partner to neutral palettes in current design trends, IMO. I want color too but it's not a clear step towards usability. I think the return of gentle skeumorphism would be a good step for general usability.
I can't believe I am learning of tabular options for fonts from this post... I have always just used a different monospace font for the numbers, didn't realize it was an option that some fonts supported. {font-variant-numeric: tabular-nums}
If only Apple could figure this out and use it for the iOS clock app.
Most typefaces all look the same to me... I think I'm typeface blind if there is such a thing. It's all just text to me...
Here's an image showing some overlay examples: https://i.imgur.com/1sdXiNY.jpeg
I can't believe I am learning of tabular options for fonts from this post... I have always just used a different monospace font for the numbers, didn't realize it was an option that some fonts supported. {font-variant-numeric: tabular-nums}
Reminds me of how fira code (my favourite font for code) can be adjusted to match the preferences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All true, except it’s not really a Whitney clone. It’s Source Sans very lightly adjusted to match Whitney’s metrics. It looks and feels exactly like Source Sans to me. It’s a little strange to present it as a prestigious project with a minisite like this. Source Sans is nice and easy to read, but so overused it’s rarely a good starting point for a visual identity.
https://nebulasans.com/img/handgloves.png
All glyphs are indistinguishable from Source Sans. The 'thin'/'light' weights are kerned further apart (and in my opinion, worse) than in Source Sans. Given these, why does this typeface deserve a new name? It is Source Sans, full stop. At least Arial (Helvetica copy) and Segoe UI and Myriad (Frutiger copies) have a handful of distinguishing glyphs. I have a very hot take—with typefaces, you absolutely get what you p…
Ok, it is a font alright. To me, it looks exactly as all the other fonts I have on my OS already, but I guess that's just how it is if you are not in the font bubble.
Fonts have different metrics which affect recognisability, legibility, and understanding. There are fonts which evoke a feeling (think heavy metal band), others which are practical (exaggerated letter forms to help dyslexia), and many many many bad fonts too, such as ones with bad kerning which make words like “therapists” read “the rapists” or “morn” read “mom”.
The fonts you have on your computer are all different and have their own strengths and weaknesses which affect you and your perception of what you read, even if you’re unaware of it.
