PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft's New Fonts




snkTab
May 4, 2005, 01:32 PM
I hope this means the death of Arial and Times New Roman. The new fonts, looks a but like Adobe's offerings though. Consolas would be a nice touch.


Bill Gates wants computer users, well, Microsoft users, to have a more enjoyable on-screen reading experience -- so much so that he made improving reading on the screen one of his top five priorities.

Beginning in 2006, Microsoft says it will ship with its operating system and other software products six brand new typefaces created especially for extended on-screen reading.

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=47&aid=78683



Blue Velvet
May 4, 2005, 01:52 PM
Interesting. All characterised by large x-heights.
Agree with him about Candara, it's very fussy.

Wonder how Adobe will be viewing these if MS want to push these as standards esp. with this rumoured Metro thang.

Thanks for the link. I love reading stuff like this... :)

p.s. Hope they manage to produce and support some decent ligatures. :p

daveL
May 4, 2005, 02:13 PM
Interesting. All characterised by large x-heights.
Agree with him about Candara, it's very fussy.

Wonder how Adobe will be viewing these if MS want to push these as standards esp. with this rumoured Metro thang.

Thanks for the link. I love reading stuff like this... :)

p.s. Hope they manage to produce and support some decent ligatures. :p
Hi Blue. Since you seem to be keyed into this stuff, may I ask what OS X font(s) you select for lengthy viewing? Say for Safari? How about mono fonts? I spend a lot of time reading on my LCD and sometimes feel a bit of eye fatigue, so I thought I might try a different font, if it would help.

TIA

Blue Velvet
May 4, 2005, 02:23 PM
I'm one of those lazy people that doesn't have a personal taste about web-viewing. Give me a discussion about a typeface for print and I'll bore the living daylights out of my colleagues until I'm forcibly stopped.

This is the person who was dumb enough to say 'Who cares? Firefox is just a browser.' to my web-colleagues. A tumble-weed, squeaky-sign moment followed.

I just use the standard vanilla settings on Safari but many things can affect eye-strain, though. Lighting, monitor, seating, etc... You may even need lenses.

daveL
May 4, 2005, 02:27 PM
You may even need lenses.
Oh, I've had those for half a dozen years. I have a special pair just for computer work.

Jaffa Cake
May 4, 2005, 02:41 PM
I quite like the Constantina italic. Corbel isn't bad either I've come across Jeremy Tankard's stuff before. All in all, better than I expected.

Fukui
May 4, 2005, 03:21 PM
I hope this means the death of Arial and Times New Roman. The new fonts, looks a but like Adobe's offerings though. Consolas would be a nice touch.
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=47&aid=78683
Calibri is pretty beautiful. Kinda like myriad but 'softer.'

Fukui
May 4, 2005, 03:42 PM
Just for comparison:
Calibri first and Myriad after.

AppleMatt
May 4, 2005, 03:47 PM
Verdana was designed for on-screen reading, I believe.

AppleMatt

snkTab
May 4, 2005, 10:39 PM
Just for comparison:
Calibri first and Myriad after.

Exactly, I love Myriad, and when I saw these I got quite irked. But what do I know, I always use Myriad bolded. Too bad I don't have Myriad Pro Bold, I just have the normal and Black version. :(

t300
May 4, 2005, 11:59 PM
I have these on my Mac right now. They are actually NOT bad.

homerjward
May 5, 2005, 12:10 AM
after looking at those, i must say very good for something from m$. not that i know anything about fonts of course, other than "ooh, that one looks cool." what's serif vs. san serif? my favorite of those is consolas. seems such an improvement over courier (i guess that's what it's replacing.)

Mav451
May 5, 2005, 12:28 AM
serif is like the nooks on the bottom of letters.

The letter I is good example.

Considering that "sans" = without...i think you can figure out the rest.

homerjward
May 5, 2005, 12:34 AM
serif is like the nooks on the bottom of letters.

The letter I is good example.

Considering that "sans" = without...i think you can figure out the rest.
thanks. so like, ThIs is sans serif, but ThIs is serif?

thequicksilver
May 5, 2005, 05:56 AM
thanks. so like, ThIs is sans serif, but ThIs is serif?

Yep, that's right.

(For further clarification, put it this way: Times and Garamond are serif fonts; Arial and Helvetica are sans [that is to say "without"] serif.)

baummer
May 5, 2005, 05:51 PM
Anyone know if these are available to download/purchase anywhere?

baummer
May 8, 2005, 08:16 PM
Anyone?

Daveway
May 8, 2005, 08:37 PM
Interesting. Wonder how Adobe will be viewing these if MS want to push these as standards esp. with this rumoured Metro thang.


Metro is not rumored anymore. Metro is real and awesome from what I saw. :cool:

MontyZ
May 11, 2005, 12:22 AM
What OS X font(s) you select for lengthy viewing?
For on-screen viewing, I think Verdana is pretty good. It's not really a "pretty" font, but, it's very functional and easy to read at small sizes.

The new fonts MS is releasing, however, offer better choices, I think. They are more attractive to look at, but, also very readable for on-screen use. Why Adobe isn't on the forefront of this, I have no idea. I guess they are too preoccupied with buying Macromedia.

The WORSE on-screen font to use is Arial. Butt ugly and too dense.

rendezvouscp
May 13, 2005, 12:36 AM
I think that these fonts are actually pretty cool. This morning I printed a research paper and used Calibri for the headings and Corbel for the main body text, and it looks pretty good. If you're interested in seeing the fonts in use in a PDF, check out a draft of my research paper (http://homepage.mac.com/rendezvouscp/productivity.pdf) (warning, 1.2 MB file).
-Chase

Mechcozmo
May 13, 2005, 01:13 AM
For on-screen viewing, I think Verdana is pretty good. It's not really a "pretty" font, but, it's very functional and easy to read at small sizes.

The WORSE on-screen font to use is Arial. Butt ugly and too dense.

Agreed on both points.

I use Monaco (IIRC), Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica, and when I'm in a nostalgia mood, Chicago.

snkTab
May 13, 2005, 06:18 AM
I think that these fonts are actually pretty cool. This morning I printed a research paper and used Calibri for the headings and Corbel for the main body text, and it looks pretty good. If you're interested in seeing the fonts in use in a PDF, check out a draft of my research paper (http://homepage.mac.com/rendezvouscp/productivity.pdf) (warning, 1.2 MB file).
-Chase

Of course they look good, I think Microsoft knows who to copy when it comes to OSes and who to copy when it comes to fonts.

That said, I wouldn't use to similar fonts in the same paper. You almost never want to use two fonts that are 90% similar next to each other, because at some level it throws the presentation. I would recommended for a paper that you either stick with one font or just two fonts each a different type. For headers use Calibri if you want, but for the text use a nice serif font. Use Constantina if you want to go with another of these fonts.

Serif fonts are great in body text because they let the reader focus on the words more and it enhances readability. Serif fonts in a header however make it look too klunky and thats why a sans serif would look better, as it adds impact.

rendezvouscp
May 14, 2005, 11:05 PM
Of course they look good, I think Microsoft knows who to copy when it comes to OSes and who to copy when it comes to fonts.

That said, I wouldn't use to similar fonts in the same paper. You almost never want to use two fonts that are 90% similar next to each other, because at some level it throws the presentation. I would recommended for a paper that you either stick with one font or just two fonts each a different type. For headers use Calibri if you want, but for the text use a nice serif font. Use Constantina if you want to go with another of these fonts.

Serif fonts are great in body text because they let the reader focus on the words more and it enhances readability. Serif fonts in a header however make it look too klunky and thats why a sans serif would look better, as it adds impact.

Interesting. Who does Microsoft copy for fonts? I'm a bit font ignorant, which brings me to my next question.

For headings, it's good to use sans-serif fonts because they're "cleaner" without the serif, right? So serif fonts are great for body text because...they draw more attention from the eye? You sound like you know what you're talking about, so I'm curious to know.
-Chase

Fukui
May 14, 2005, 11:56 PM
For headings, it's good to use sans-serif fonts because they're "cleaner" without the serif, right? So serif fonts are great for body text because...they draw more attention from the eye?
-Chase
I don't personally like serif stuff. It looks like a million little thorns poking my eyes (the serifs). Though serif is good on some roman fonts for serious feel... I don't really like it that much, too harsh to me.
Interesting. Who does Microsoft copy for fonts? I'm a bit font ignorant, which brings me to my next question.

Myriad seems to be apples favorite font for advertising it seems.
So, you can check my previous post....

snkTab
May 15, 2005, 02:06 AM
For headings, it's good to use sans-serif fonts because they're "cleaner" without the serif, right? So serif fonts are great for body text because...they draw more attention from the eye? You sound like you know what you're talking about, so I'm curious to know.
-Chase

Yes exactly, for headers sans serif can make the header look to busy. Also, sans serif is an eye stopper. You see, the serifs on the letters actually make each letter more distinguisable at some level, and because people read words rather than the letters, easy to read. San serif kinda stops the eye, so would kinda be beneficial for titles. Also, sans serifs by nature look nicer bolded.

Here's an image of the two in a header and text comparison. Note the serif font Garamond doesn't look to read as well as it's counterpart myriad in this case. This is because at small sizes the weights of the serifs get lost as the font is pixelated while viewing on a screen. However on paper, this wouldn't be an issue.

snkTab
May 15, 2005, 02:21 AM
Interesting. Who does Microsoft copy for fonts? I'm a bit font ignorant, which brings me to my next question.


Well I don't see in the future any new revolutionary new fonts. Adobe has a really great portfolio, especially in fonts that translate well from screen to paper. Best case scenario would be for Microsoft to offer these fonts on Longhorn, however, since each font cost hundreds of dollars this isn't an option. Also, these are professional fonts. Also noted, is that the font in question from adobe are made in huge sets that are actually several fonts rather than having one font and letting the software do the work. Here's a small sample of Cahparral fonts you would get with the opentype library

Chaparral Pro Bold
Chaparral Pro Bold Caption
Chaparral Pro Bold Display
Chaparral Pro Bold Italic
Chaparral Pro Bold Italic Caption
Chaparral Pro Bold Italic Display
Chaparral Pro Bold Italic Subhead
Chaparral Pro Bold Subhead
Chaparral Pro Caption
Chaparral Pro Display
Chaparral Pro Italic
Chaparral Pro Italic Caption
Chaparral Pro Italic Display
Chaparral Pro Italic Subhead
Chaparral Pro Light
Chaparral Pro Light Caption
Chaparral Pro Light Display
Chaparral Pro Light Italic
Chaparral Pro Light Italic Caption
Chaparral Pro Light Italic Display
Chaparral Pro Light Italic Subhead
Chaparral Pro Light Subhead
Chaparral Pro Regular
Chaparral Pro SemiBold
Chaparral Pro SemiBold Caption
Chaparral Pro SemiBold Display
Chaparral Pro SemiBold Italic
Chaparral Pro SemiBold Italic Caption
Chaparral Pro SemiBold Italic Display
Chaparral Pro SemiBold Italic Subhead
Chaparral Pro SemiBold Subhead
Chaparral Pro Subhead

That shown, I think Myriad actually has more than 100 variations. Now it seems that Microsoft has contracted designers to make some fonts that are quite simliar to adobes professional series, but without the cost.

MontyZ
May 15, 2005, 01:52 PM
This is not to say you can't use serif fonts for heading text and make it look good. Apple did a few years ago with it's "Apple Garamond" typeface, before it switched to the sans-serif typeface it uses now. It's usually better to mix the two, so, if you use serif for headings, use sans-serif for body text and vice-versa. WHICH serif or sans-serif typeface you use is the tricky part, because some work better for different functions.

Blue Velvet
May 15, 2005, 01:55 PM
A nice big 48-72pt serif can look very nice as a head, particularly in magazine spreads.

Rules are made to be broken... to a point.

snkTab
May 15, 2005, 11:00 PM
I agree, rules for fonts are more generalized than most things. I doubt that if you asked anyone who had just read a novel that they would actually remember what the letters looked like, did they have serifs or not?

When it comes down to it, it's the font and the medium that really determine how it will look. :confused:

And when it really comes down to it. 99% of your audience doesn't care

7on
May 15, 2005, 11:34 PM
I agree, rules for fonts are more generalized than most things. I doubt that if you asked anyone who had just read a novel that they would actually remember what the letters looked like, did they have serifs or not?

When it comes down to it, it's the font and the medium that really determine how it will look. :confused:

And when it really comes down to it. 99% of your audience doesn't care

Shhhhhhhhhh don't let those companies who hire us designers find out that the audience don't care ;P

MontyZ
May 16, 2005, 02:40 PM
And when it really comes down to it. 99% of your audience doesn't care
They only care when they don't like it. ;)