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

91–100 of 107 posts

Re: Nebula Sans

#91

Post by latexr »

yencabulator wrote: post #90
latexr wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erik Spiekermann is a German typographer who gave a talk called (something to the effect of) “why do we need so many typefaces”. At one point, Erik simply shows a slide with “this is why”, in what is clearly the Marlboro font. 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…

You've given examples of fonts for branding. Those are not everyday use fonts. We don't program with heavy metal band logos. The fonts we actually use are interchangeable, and people outside the font bubble won't even notice the differences.

You’re ignoring half of the argument. I have given some examples of branding and some examples of real use. “Legibility, and understanding” aren’t branding. “Dyslexia” isn’t branding. Typography is a branch of graphic design with a lot of study behind it. Just like subtle uses of colour and element positioning can change how you interact with, perceive, and feel about an interface, so can typefaces.

Again, just because you’re unable to notice how exactly you’re being affected does not mean you aren’t. You also don’t notice all the ways you’re affected by advertising, but they still work on you.

Yes, of course not every single subtle change to a font makes a huge impact. Just like a single subtle change to a colour’s hue doesn’t. But pronounced changes do, even when you’re unable to put your finger on it.

Re: Nebula Sans

#92

Post by yencabulator »

latexr wrote: post #91
yencabulator wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've given examples of fonts for branding. Those are not everyday use fonts. We don't program with heavy metal band logos. The fonts we actually use are interchangeable, and people outside the font bubble won't even notice the differences.

You’re ignoring half of the argument. I have given some examples of branding and some examples of real use. “Legibility, and understanding” aren’t branding. “Dyslexia” isn’t branding. Typography is a branch of graphic design with a lot of study behind it. Just like subtle uses of colour and element positioning can change how you interact with, perceive, and feel about an interface, so can typefaces. Again, just becau…

Sure, readability is a quality of a font, and older fonts can be worse at it. But it's hard to use just readability to justify yet another designer pushing yet another font as a "A versatile, modern, humanist sans-serif with a neutral aesthetic, designed for legibility in both digital and print applications" by just that.

If it were a non-fashion criteria, surely we'd be hitting a local maximum on readability.

I don't need or want my everyday use font to "affect" me, or to "make impact" -- that's the branding world, again, and not aligned with readability.

Re: Nebula Sans

#93

Post by latexr »

yencabulator wrote: post #92
latexr wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re ignoring half of the argument. I have given some examples of branding and some examples of real use. “Legibility, and understanding” aren’t branding. “Dyslexia” isn’t branding. Typography is a branch of graphic design with a lot of study behind it. Just like subtle uses of colour and element positioning can change how you interact with, perceive, and feel about an interface, so can typefaces. Again, just becau…

Sure, readability is a quality of a font, and older fonts can be worse at it. But it's hard to use just readability to justify yet another designer pushing yet another font as a "A versatile, modern, humanist sans-serif with a neutral aesthetic, designed for legibility in both digital and print applications" by just that. If it were a non-fashion criteria, surely we'd be hitting a local maximum on readability. I don'…

Except differences run much deeper than that. For example, the amount of characters supported. Many fonts don’t support anything other than ASCII, some support both Latin and CJK. Ligatures, how many weights it has, there are a myriad of technical reasons to pick one font over another.

There is no perfect font, just like there is no perfect framework. You pick what suits you or makes sense for your project. Sometimes you don’t understand your requirements until you try to use something.

> I don't need or want my everyday use font to "affect" me, or to "make impact"

And being aware of the details is the best way to avoid that.

Re: Nebula Sans

#94

Post by todotask2 »

My only wish to to have a font with: - Alt a - single story g - plain upper case I and L - geometric 3 - and a $

Inter is a just slightly bolder by default.

Re: Nebula Sans

#95

Post by delta_p_delta_x »

codedokode wrote: post #58
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…

It seems that you have included mostly old fonts as examples. And what is your opinion about free fonts like Roboto, Open Sans or Noto?

All three are quite utilitarian typefaces, nothing to really write home about. But they're all quite readable, which makes them appropriate for the use cases they're typically employed for—UIs and basic document production. Especially Open and Noto Sans; they look like wider Calibris.

Re: Nebula Sans

#96

Post by delta_p_delta_x »

tasuki wrote: post #48
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…

You seem to know a thing or two about typeface design. What do you think about Alegreya, Playfair, and Ubuntu fonts?

Alegreya seems like a Garamond derivative, but it has a very interesting character; the glyph stroke widths—especially the verticals—have an intriguing taper. I really like the lowercase italic 'g' and 'h'.

Playfair is Didone, and I feel Didones (this includes TeX's default, Computer Modern) don't really do well on displays because of the very high contrast between the ball serifs and rather thin vertical strokes. Otherwise it's a nice Didone: I'd use it, but as a printed typeface.

I'm not the biggest fan of Ubuntu. Especially the lowercase 'r', it's got a weird shape.

Re: Nebula Sans

#97

Post by popalchemist »

yencabulator wrote: post #92
latexr wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re ignoring half of the argument. I have given some examples of branding and some examples of real use. “Legibility, and understanding” aren’t branding. “Dyslexia” isn’t branding. Typography is a branch of graphic design with a lot of study behind it. Just like subtle uses of colour and element positioning can change how you interact with, perceive, and feel about an interface, so can typefaces. Again, just becau…

Sure, readability is a quality of a font, and older fonts can be worse at it. But it's hard to use just readability to justify yet another designer pushing yet another font as a "A versatile, modern, humanist sans-serif with a neutral aesthetic, designed for legibility in both digital and print applications" by just that. If it were a non-fashion criteria, surely we'd be hitting a local maximum on readability. I don'…

You are the consumer of fonts. The user of fonts is a designer. If you don't design, this entire debate is outside your field of concern.

Re: Nebula Sans

#98

Post by yencabulator »

popalchemist wrote: post #97
yencabulator wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, readability is a quality of a font, and older fonts can be worse at it. But it's hard to use just readability to justify yet another designer pushing yet another font as a "A versatile, modern, humanist sans-serif with a neutral aesthetic, designed for legibility in both digital and print applications" by just that. If it were a non-fashion criteria, surely we'd be hitting a local maximum on readability. I don'…

You are the consumer of fonts. The user of fonts is a designer. If you don't design, this entire debate is outside your field of concern.

This thread started with

> 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.

So, yeah. Grandparent tried to justify this new whatever by saying lots of words, none of which really seemed to matter outside of the font bubble.

Re: Nebula Sans

#99

Post by antasvara »

yencabulator wrote: post #90
latexr wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erik Spiekermann is a German typographer who gave a talk called (something to the effect of) “why do we need so many typefaces”. At one point, Erik simply shows a slide with “this is why”, in what is clearly the Marlboro font. 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…

You've given examples of fonts for branding. Those are not everyday use fonts. We don't program with heavy metal band logos. The fonts we actually use are interchangeable, and people outside the font bubble won't even notice the differences.

I think it's one of those things where you don't "notice" it, but where it nevertheless has an impact. Sort of like someone might not "notice" the fact that there's more butter or salt in restaurant food, but it's subjectively better than the same meal they cooked at home.

For a more directly relevant example, companies frequently A/B test changes to a UI to see which ones people like better. The specifics of those changes would be pretty marginal if you didn't know what it looked like before (like if you're a new user, you wouldn't notice if the notification was red versus purple, or what the wording in the menu is). Despite this, there are some sites that just "feel" better in a way that you can't really describe.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying that I can't tell if I'm looking at Arial, Helvetica, or this Nebula Sans font unless they were side by side (and even then I'd just be saying they're different, not identifying them by name). But I think the site would feel a lot less modern if it were written in Times New Roman. I think you'd notice if it were too hard to read when small, and I think if it looked "bad," you'd at least subconsciously notice that.

Re: Nebula Sans

#100

Post by yencabulator »

antasvara wrote: post #99
yencabulator wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've given examples of fonts for branding. Those are not everyday use fonts. We don't program with heavy metal band logos. The fonts we actually use are interchangeable, and people outside the font bubble won't even notice the differences.

I think it's one of those things where you don't "notice" it, but where it nevertheless has an impact. Sort of like someone might not "notice" the fact that there's more butter or salt in restaurant food, but it's subjectively better than the same meal they cooked at home. For a more directly relevant example, companies frequently A/B test changes to a UI to see which ones people like better. The specifics of those c…

Sure, I'd happily take a more readable, less eye strain, less ink consuming, whatever, font. What is announced here, however, is "A versatile, modern, humanist sans-serif with a neutral aesthetic, designed for legibility in both digital and print applications" which is just designer speak for NIH.
Post reply on HN