| Page 2 of 2 |
|
|
 Posted: Mon, 22nd Jul 2013 00:16 Post subject: |
|
 |
Last edited by Interinactive on Tue, 5th Oct 2021 03:14; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Mon, 22nd Jul 2013 00:21 Post subject: |
|
|
| LeoNatan wrote: | I do, of course, but I think Open Sans is too loose, and it is not to my liking. I think it is liked mainly due to its license type, rather than aesthetics.
I would argue that line spacing is much more important and could help here more. |
Open Sans is a little too loose, but it's still better than the majority of fonts that are considered "pretty". "Pretty" means "sucks to read" in 90% of all fonts, there are very few quality fonts available - or they require a ridiculous license, which makes them undesirable for the web (imagine the hump paying by pageview  ).
| Quote: | I am using SCP?  |
http://www.nfohump.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2243613#2243613
? 
| Quote: | | But high DPI helps because shapes are much easily distinguished by the eyes. That is why you can allow yourself much lower weights and kerning (which effectively tightens letter spacing) and still be able to read with easy, things that were just not possible on old displays (pentile especially). |
Yeah, high DPI is good for lower weights; but that's something to solve via media queries, because those same weights often look like shit on a larger 1080p monitor. The web is the one place where there will never be one size to fit them all  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73194
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Mon, 22nd Jul 2013 00:29 Post subject: |
|
|
Doh!  Had something completely different in mind for "SCP" and it has nothing to do with typefaces.
But that's monospace, of course it has a lot of letter spacing hahaha. I also use the ExtraLight (which is what weight, 200?) on the "retina" and just Light on the 27".
| Interinactive wrote: | | LeoNatan wrote: | | Why does it have to be Open Sans? |
I don't think it has to be, it's one example, I just think it's better that if a font were chosen that it would be better to be something that ticks all the boxes and can be spread across everything. I don't know of many other free ones (full families) that are as decent |
Why does it have to be free? OS X and Windows come with enough good fonts to choose from, while Linux just does not, but they are used to shy typography on the web.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 22nd Jul 2013 02:04 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Interinactive on Tue, 5th Oct 2021 03:14; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73194
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Mon, 22nd Jul 2013 02:59 Post subject: |
|
|
I do not want to limit quality for consistency across devices. If someone cares about typography so much, he'd already have the fonts he is missing on his operating system, and would not choose a mobile operating system that practically has no font selection.
The most quality web fonts and services out there are not free.
So if it comes down to consistency vs. quality, I would first choose quality. It would still be consistent across the browsing session.
Especially for the bunch here that is fine with Tahoma and use Linux for their ordeals, they could care less about the font. And I could care less if someone sees Roboto instead of Gill Sans on their Android crap.
The intended experience is for them to read the forum, which will be "consistent" across the board.
Apple uses Lucida Grande for their typeface, with fallback to Lucida Sans Unicode (which has many differences with Grande), Helvetica (nothing like Grande), Arial and Verdana. Open that website on Android or Linux and see how bad it looks, when the images they have use Lucida Grande, while the text uses Bitstream Vera Sans. Linux is sad for typography.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 22nd Jul 2013 03:25 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Interinactive on Tue, 5th Oct 2021 03:14; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73194
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Mon, 22nd Jul 2013 03:29 Post subject: |
|
|
I tested it at 15px. I agree with you on that. Open Sans looks bad to me at 15px, while almost everything look bad at 12px.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 22nd Jul 2013 03:31 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Interinactive on Tue, 5th Oct 2021 03:14; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73194
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Mon, 22nd Jul 2013 03:32 Post subject: |
|
|
Then you should really get a MBPr. I'm spoilt too! 
But even more the reasons to distance yourself from Open Sans, a font designed for another era for a operating system with a bad typography features (in before Werelds tries his best to disprove).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 22nd Jul 2013 04:05 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Interinactive on Tue, 5th Oct 2021 03:14; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73194
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Mon, 22nd Jul 2013 04:10 Post subject: |
|
|
Now finally in Win8.1, they have 200% scaling just like on OSX, after making fun of Apple just a year before of what a bad implementation that is. 
But yeah, that sequence of emoticons describes Microsoft so well these days:
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 2 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
