←back to thread

Rubio stages font coup: Times New Roman ousts Calibri

(www.reuters.com)
388 points italophil | 7 comments | 10 Dec 25 00:08 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
ebbi[dead post] ◴[10 Dec 25 22:20 UTC] No.46224733[source]▶
[flagged]
youngNed ◴[10 Dec 25 22:27 UTC] No.46224825[source]▶
But.... and this is important, it's not funny.

"Here is a thing that makes a slight difference, with no cost, to a small percentage of people"

"Nah, woke. Let's make it worse for them."

There is nothing funny about performative cruelty

replies(3): >>46224848 #>>46224911 #>>46224946 #
1. the_gastropod ◴[10 Dec 25 22:34 UTC] No.46224921[source]▶
Let's even say (incorrectly, probably) that the switch to Calibri was "performative" or "virtue signaling". That's, in my opinion, significantly less terrible than performative cruelty or anti-virtue signaling.
2. AshleyGrant ◴[10 Dec 25 22:36 UTC] No.46224945[source]▶
If you had read the article, you would know the answer to this question.

Calibri is a font designed to be easier to read on screens, which is where documents are primarily read in 2025. Switching to using Calibri as the default was a meaningful change that provided improved accessibility at literally no cost to anyone.

Switching back to Times New Roman, a serif font that is provably more difficult to read on screens is yet another act of performative cruelty by this administration who seemingly operates with "the cruelty is the point" as one of its core tenets.

replies(1): >>46225194 #
3. bena ◴[10 Dec 25 22:39 UTC] No.46224978[source]▶
This is a performative change.

The change to Calibri was meaningful.

Because Calibri is an easier to read font on screens, which is where a lot more reading is being done.

Since it was done as an accessibility measure, it is seen as something for "inclusion" which is part of the scary "DEI" (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion). So it had to go, because forbid we do something that makes things slightly easier for people.

4. youngNed ◴[10 Dec 25 22:41 UTC] No.46224998[source]▶
Performative? The one that you read about. The one that had a press release, the one that had articles on social media that you are commenting on.

Meaningful? The one that looked into which font was more readable, for the most people

replies(1): >>46225213 #
5. groundzeros2015 ◴[10 Dec 25 22:58 UTC] No.46225194[source]▶
Is screen readability the only value to consider?

> If you had read the article

Please read the rules.

6. groundzeros2015 ◴[10 Dec 25 22:59 UTC] No.46225213[source]▶
Do you have trouble reading Times New Roman? Every computer I used growing up used it in much lower resolution.
replies(1): >>46225331 #
7. roughly ◴[10 Dec 25 23:10 UTC] No.46225331{3}[source]▶
No, but I’m also not an accessibility expert, so my opinion here’s pretty irrelevant.