Making Google Sans Flex • Hacker News Board

Re: Making Google Sans Flex

#91

Post by esseph » Fri, Dec 19, 2025, 9:56 PM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #78

mapt wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of these companies are now designing the phone on the assumption you're going to case it. No other reason to make a Pixel camera bump w/ scratch-vulnerable screen stick out so far.

If that is the case, then either the phone should come with a case or it should not be marketed as a complete product. How about making the phone more durable by adding 1 mm to its thickness, so that a 50 gram, 4 mm thick case won't need to be added.

I used my case not so much to protect my device, although it definitely does, but so I can hold onto the damn thing.

Without a case it's like holding the last gasps of a bar of almost flat soap. Also keeps it from sliding off surfaces.

Re: Making Google Sans Flex

#92

Post by nomel » Sat, Dec 20, 2025, 12:11 AM UTC

mft_ wrote: post #38

TekMol wrote: post #10

Since even after 2 hours nobody is discussing the actual font, let me tell you what comes to my mind when I read anything about Google and design: They got phone design right. I just can't get my head around it that even Apple, which is supposed to be THE design company, is making phones that can't lay on a table without wobbling like a barstool on a crooked floor. It just feels so broken to me. So detrimental to my…

Apple probably has swathes of real-world usability data showing that virtually no-one uses their phone for prolonged periods of time while it's laying down on a hard flat surface. You may be right about the aesthetics (and Lord Jobs may well have agreed with you) but they may have made the tradeoff consciously.

Hot take: a wobbly phone is much easier to pick up from the table.

Re: Making Google Sans Flex

#93

Post by Ferret7446 » Sat, Dec 20, 2025, 2:31 AM UTC

grumbel wrote: post #45

Why do new fonts still make "l" and "I" indistinguishable?

It's hard to make them distinguishable for a sans serif font, I think it's acceptable to give up for a sans font

Re: Making Google Sans Flex

#94

Post by bsimpson » Sat, Dec 20, 2025, 5:41 AM UTC

stevage wrote: post #54

Took me so long to realise that "Google Sans Flex" is the name of the font. I read the title as "creating Google without using Flex [whatever that is]"

Flex is the brand they use for their variable fonts. Roboto has Roboto Flex. Google Sans has Google Sans Flex.

Re: Making Google Sans Flex

#95

Post by bsimpson » Sat, Dec 20, 2025, 5:45 AM UTC

clircle wrote: post #40

I find the whole “corporate blogging about fonts” subculture really funny

They've served 113 trillion: https://fonts.google.com/analytics

They're entitled to take fonts seriously.

Re: Making Google Sans Flex

#96

Post by eviks » Sat, Dec 20, 2025, 8:03 AM UTC

Ferret7446 wrote: post #93

grumbel wrote: post #45

Why do new fonts still make "l" and "I" indistinguishable?

It's hard to make them distinguishable for a sans serif font, I think it's acceptable to give up for a sans font

How is it hard to add curved base to l?

Re: Making Google Sans Flex

#97

Post by cromka » Sun, Dec 21, 2025, 10:44 AM UTC

iterance wrote: post #84

mft_ wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple probably has swathes of real-world usability data showing that virtually no-one uses their phone for prolonged periods of time while it's laying down on a hard flat surface. You may be right about the aesthetics (and Lord Jobs may well have agreed with you) but they may have made the tradeoff consciously.

One can say "they probably had data to support it" about virtually any decision. It is not really a defense from critique. It may have been deliberate, but it still feels wrong and bad.

I think the point is it feels wrong and bad to benign number of people.