logoalt Hacker News

tolerancelast Tuesday at 4:18 PM2 repliesview on HN

Why not? One quality is inherent, the other inherited. The typeface was developed with banality in mind and presumably become popular because of its utility in this respect. The ensuing popularity in word processors and on the Web likely lead to the idea that it’s more professional than others.

Again, the author:

> Indeed, the stronger explanation for Times New Roman’s long reign isn’t aesthetic excellence, but practicality and inertia.


Replies

f30e3dfed1c9last Tuesday at 4:47 PM

"The typeface was developed with banality in mind..."

That's completely wrong. Times New Roman was designed for legibility at small sizes, in narrow columns, on absorbent newsprint, printed at high speed. That is, it was designed explicitly for a very specific purpose, which it fills admirably.

None of that should be taken as any kind of comment on the current brouhaha.

show 1 reply
moron4hirelast Tuesday at 7:01 PM

Because font choice outside of large strokes like fantasy fonts is meaningless.

All of this exposition only works if people are literate in typography enough to get it. Most people can't even understand literalist art, say nothing about the symbolism of typography.

It's like how the Victorians invented a whole meaning categorization to different species of flowers and then acted like it was universal law. It's a secret in-crowd code. It has no inherent meaning.

show 1 reply