Speaking of which...
> finally displacing Inter after many years of uncontested service
Inter is by far the blandest typeface possible—it feels like the designer thought 'let's take all the sans-serifs and smush them together'. Its several contextual alternates just dilute it even more. I would never use it for UI, let alone any sort of branding.
I look at most fonts that get recommended here and it's immediately obvious they weren't tested on low end monitors at all (which is what most people I know use).
(As an aside, Cascadia is the only compact monospace font that looks good on this POS. Other good looking typefaces are too vertically stretched — oversized x-height.)
And now the thread will be entirely dominated by pedantic complaints about the site's implementation, per HN tradition.
Most new typefaces aren't, I concede that (especially the ones developed on Macs), but older ones were developed on monitors with lower pixel density (or even CRTs), ergo my point about good hinting.
The 5210 was the best, it was indestructible, cheap, kept its charge and still was functional even if you rode over it in your bulldozer.
The 8110 was the second imo, but only for the style.
And the 3310-ish were the runners-up. Cheaper than 5k series, and almost as useful.
Sites just shouldn't disable zooming, it's one meta tag. The browsers shouldn't offer this option at all. There are no legitimate reasons to disable zooming.
It’s not a coincidence that things like mint and cinnamon are still being maintained.
Lucida Grande is very nice for example but clearly designed for the OS X and iOS text rendering systems of its era and looks odd under Linux. Similarly MS UI fonts look weird in the absence of ClearType.
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charcoal_(typeface) [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_(typeface)
I carry a Nokia smartphone as my main phone (G400) and I personally love it. It is really a no-nonsense kind of phone, they kept the headphone jack (which I use almost every day) it even comes with a charger, and it is one of the more affordable smartphones out there.
I really don’t understand what kind of a business decisions it is to own such a legendary brand with such as a rich and successful history and not use it.
Nokia Sans Wide: https://i.imgur.com/6nrYOeP.png
Noto Sans (default): https://i.imgur.com/SgxI2qO.png
Is web the wrong platform for these types of experiences? Perhaps, but it's also the only way to avoid the walled garden.
- Websites relying on pixel-perfect layouts that do not gracefully adapt when zoomed
- Input Errors on touch devices
- Branding and aesthetics
- Embedded devices where a site is running in a controlled environment where zooming serves no practical purposes and disabling zooming prevents tampering, misuse, accidental UI scaling that disrupts normal operations
- Fixed-scale graphics or games where zooming distorts aspect ratios, crop controls, or even break gameplay mechanics
Zoom works find on default samsung browser
Out in the rest of the world, Nokia Symbian phones were the leading smartphone platform. In the US, almost nobody knew they existed.
I bet $1000 that's mostly due to ridiculous patents, business contracts with term limits, poor managerial decisions, and possibly EU regulations that make it more expensive/harder to innovate.
This is a hot take if I've ever seen one. Completely ignoring the launch of the iphone in 2007 which coincided with their downfall. We could say yeah, maybe they didn't partner with CDMA and all the weird V-cast shit Verizon was doing and that hurt their market share like crazy, but to say SIP was the dealbreaker, just lol.
Also, Android shipped a native SIP client until this decade: https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-killing-native-sip...
Having 10% in the US with 40% globally is a major problem. Tech journalism sells products and tech journalism is focused on the US market.
Here's a blog [2] reposting a no longer available article on smart phone marketshare in 2006. It points out that symbian was dominant worldwide, but only had 10% of market share in the US.
This is why this article says Americans might not know of Nokia. They were once a major vendor in the US, but US sales have been low since at least 2006. Symbian market share continued to grow worldwide after the release of the iPhone, but not in the US where it finished disappearing.
Of course, Nokia dropping CDMA in 2006 [3] and never releasing a Symbian CDMA phone doesn't help when half of the US was using CDMA.
[1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/1563633/2007-was-a-blo...
[2] https://mobile-thoughts.blogspot.com/2007/03/smartphone-os-m...
[3] https://www.macworld.com/article/182913/sync_symbian.html
I mean, I'm not going to fault your choices. Reasonable people can disagree on the details here. We're talking about an absolutely stacked lineup here.
The details are very easy to find out on Wikipedia.
https://www.nokia.com/about-us/newsroom/media-resources/medi...
When pixels are that big, the readability of a good font allows you to actually use the extra space instead of just making everything huge.
Anyway, I don't think that changing fonts on different displays is really a problem. If you're reading a book and a magazine, then switching between the two will also cause the fonts which you see to switch, and it's not like your brain has any trouble with it. Basically, your brain can quickly and easily get comfortable with the idea of looking at A and seeing font 1, and looking at B and seeing font 2.
Shapes aren't software, and whatever fool judicial ruling set that precedent is ripe for some loopholing.