logoalt Hacker News

treetalkerlast Wednesday at 1:38 AM7 repliesview on HN

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

cafardlast Wednesday at 3:19 PM

For about ten years I worked for composition shops, and eventually for a maker of typesetting systems. Through blurred eyes I could tell TNR from Baskerville from Garamond from Janson from ... Some of these fonts I can still identify.

But I have no idea what font was used in the book I just finished reading or the book that I'm returning to later today. My main question about a font is whether I can read it with old eyes.

I do agree that designers should care about these matters. I'll add that for some portion of the reading public TNR more likely means The New Republic than Times New Roman.

[Five minutes later: the book just finished, What We Can Know by Ian McEwan, appears to be set in Palatino, never a favorite of mine. The one I'm returning to, I'm not sure.]

show 1 reply
bjolilast Wednesday at 5:53 AM

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.

show 4 replies
rasselast Thursday at 6:07 AM

In the context of documents, the lack of font choice regarding Times New Roman could be partly attributed to the fact that it was the default font on Microsoft Word until 2007. The irony is, of course, that it was replaced by none other than Calibri.

Incipientlast Wednesday at 2:28 AM

>Still, I would have gone with Comic Sans.

I don't often genuinely laugh out loud at comments on HN, but that one was good! Subtle, classy, and a gentle yet effective dig.

show 1 reply
BobbyTables2last Wednesday at 4:24 AM

I definitely was thinking of Comic Sans. Both in terms of the horrible typeface and the “not funny” connotation of the name. (Yeah I know sans is referring to lack of serif)

MengerSpongelast Wednesday at 11:33 PM

> I would have gone with Comic Sans

Funny, I would have gone with Tannenberg

nalnqlast Wednesday at 1:43 AM

The Times New Roman commentary could have been true back when it was written, but now Calibri is the default for Microsoft Word, and has been for a long while (almost 20 years). So choosing Calibri is the path of least resistance.

show 2 replies