Rubio stages font coup: Times New Roman ousts Calibri

(www.reuters.com)

Show context

treetalker ◴[10 Dec 25 01:38 UTC] No.46213053[source]▶

Butterick on TNR:

(https://practicaltypography.com/times-new-roman-alternatives...)

> When Times New Roman appears in a book, document, or advertisement, it connotes apathy. It says, “I submitted to the font of least resistance.” Times New Roman is not a font choice so much as the absence of a font choice, like the blackness of deep space is not a color. To look at Times New Roman is to gaze into the void.

> If you have a choice about using Times New Roman, please stop. Use something else.

And on Calibri:

(https://practicaltypography.com/calibri-alternatives.html)

> Like Cambria, Calibri works well on screen. But in print, its rounded corners make body text look soft. If you need a clean sans serif font, you have better options.

- - -

To telegraph an identity, TNR is a good choice for this administration; so, credit where due, well played. Still, I would have gone with Comic Sans.

replies(7): >>46213082 #>>46213338 #>>46214070 #>>46214541 #>>46218652 #>>46225585 #>>46228205 #

1. bjoli ◴[10 Dec 25 05:53 UTC] No.46214541[source]▶

>>46213053 #

People like this makes me want to use Times New Roman more. Maybe not Butterick specifically (the website is fine), but all those people that make a blog and pick a font before even knowing what they even want to write. Most of the time people change the default my web browser has, they make things worse. For a font choice to be any kind of personal expression in my eyes, you first need everything else in place: content, layout, design.

To spite these people I force the use of Arial on the worst offenders. The list is now a couple of thousand websites long.

replies(4): >>46214571 #>>46225743 #>>46226161 #>>46226822 #

2. eviks ◴[10 Dec 25 06:00 UTC] No.46214571[source]▶

>>46214541 (TP) #

But you're not spiting anyone, they don't even know about this, just wasting your time compiling a list of a thousand websites

replies(1): >>46214606 #

3. bjoli ◴[10 Dec 25 06:05 UTC] No.46214606[source]▶

>>46214571 #

Oh, I could have picked a other font. I just get a smug feeling when forcing these websites to use Arial. The main reason for using another font on these web pages is that their own choices are worse than not changing it. So that list of thousands of web pages is to make their web pages legible and more usable, not just to be a prick.

I picked Arial so that I could tell the web pages apart from those who had the good taste to leave my web browsers standard font alone. I don't mind arial.

replies(1): >>46227783 #

4. comradesmith ◴[10 Dec 25 23:48 UTC] No.46225743[source]▶

>>46214541 (TP) #

You can’t separate layout and design from typeface selection.

But yes I agree content must come first. Typeface probably comes second!

5. morshu9001 ◴[11 Dec 25 00:38 UTC] No.46226161[source]▶

>>46214541 (TP) #

When there's an HN link to some philosophy website that intentionally only uses lower-case letters, an obscure font, and yellow on green color scheme, with a page explaining those choices

6. chrismorgan ◴[11 Dec 25 02:09 UTC] No.46226822[source]▶

>>46214541 (TP) #

> Most of the time people change the default my web browser has, they make things worse.

In Firefox: Settings → Fonts → Advanced… → untick Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of your selections above. I’ve been running this way for almost six years now; it makes the web so much better.

7. jrochkind1 ◴[11 Dec 25 04:47 UTC] No.46227783{3}[source]▶

>>46214606 #

Perhaps your smug feeling can cancel out the smug feeling the author/publisher had when picking a font before even knowing what they even want to write.

It's important to keep the smugness balanced, thanks for doing your part.

↑