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

Nebula Sans

nebulasans.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 107 posts

Re: Nebula Sans

#61

Post by huhtenberg »

tobr wrote: post #44
huhtenberg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://nebulasans.com/img/handgloves.png

I saw that. Here's a quick similar comparison between Nebula Sans and Source Sans I just whipped up: https://imgur.com/JPwgYkj

It's more about overall look and feel, which in large part comes from the glyph proportions (the x-height), spacing and weights - https://i.imgur.com/mygqn3H.png

Glyph proportions between Whitney and Nebula are almost identical. As are their weights. Source Sans is substantially heavier and more dense looking.

While individual glyphs may be closer between Nebula and Source Sans, but the overall feel of Nebula is that of Whitney.

Re: Nebula Sans

#62

Post by dejongh »

Thanks for posting and commenting. The choice of font is a great way to add aesthetics to text - designers so use this opportunity a lot more IMHO.

Re: Nebula Sans

#63

Post by stared »

huhtenberg wrote: post #38
tobr wrote: post #37

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

Is there some online tool for comparing fonts that way?

Re: Nebula Sans

#65

Post by graemep »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #35
JimRyan wrote: post #21

> We believe in facts, science, and human rights The font looks ok. This is an off putting sample sentence though. It sounds like a secular, pseudo-liturgical version of the Nicene creed.

Whats wrong with facts, science, and human rights?

Science is not something to be believed in, it is a methodology that involves making and testing theories etc. People argue about it is and how it works and should work (philosophy of science is a significant field in itself) and it is not well defined, but what it is NOT is a body of facts.

Particular scientific theories may be believed in (or not believed in).

That said their samples sentences also include things such as "We’re assembling a crew for a heist" so maybe not take these things too seriously?

Re: Nebula Sans

#66

Post by graemep »

JimRyan wrote: post #21

> We believe in facts, science, and human rights The font looks ok. This is an off putting sample sentence though. It sounds like a secular, pseudo-liturgical version of the Nicene creed.

Their samples sentences also include things such as "We’re assembling a crew for a heist" so maybe not take these things too seriously?

Re: Nebula Sans

#68

Post by gorgoiler »

jofzar wrote: post #10

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}

After the Handgloves specimen, the next part of the page is black with tiny writing. My awful eyesight and mobile scrolling priors caused my brain to assume I had reached the bottom of the page and stop scrolling.

Thanks for pointing out, indirectly, that there’s a lot more content than I had assumed!

Re: Nebula Sans

#69

Post by jibal »

huhtenberg wrote: post #61
tobr wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw that. Here's a quick similar comparison between Nebula Sans and Source Sans I just whipped up: https://imgur.com/JPwgYkj

It's more about overall look and feel, which in large part comes from the glyph proportions (the x-height), spacing and weights - https://i.imgur.com/mygqn3H.png Glyph proportions between Whitney and Nebula are almost identical. As are their weights. Source Sans is substantially heavier and more dense looking. While individual glyphs may be closer between Nebula and Source Sans, but the overall feel of Nebula is that…

Failed rebuttal of tobr's clearly true statement. Your own png refutes your position.

Re: Nebula Sans

#70

Post by numpad0 »

tmtvl wrote: post #16
delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #8

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…

My test is simple: does it have a monospace variant and does it support Japanese? If not, then it's worse than IBM Plex.

This is weird to say, but it never occurred to me previously that an ISO-8859-1 font perfectly consistent with all variants of itself + CJK(by switching variants or whatever) would be massively useful. CJK speakers usually switch and mix fonts as needed to build a content than trying to pick single font for everything, and vast majority of people just don't understand multiple languages, so there are little driving forces towards a single universal font solution.

But a universal font makes sense. It's almost odd that this is so rarely said out loud.

Post reply on HN