It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Marc Oxborrow said:
James, without commenting on the merits of the treatment, surely the argument is for better performance onscreen, not in print?
Ray Larabie said:
I assume those sheared ends are imperceptible to the naked eye at their intended reading sizes.
Adam Twardoch said:
Your article is a bit confusing. You conflate a new font family (Helvetica Now) and a font+software solution (SF). Apple makes iOS and macOS, and had built some font switching for the SF fonts into the operating system. The SF fonts outside the Apple systems don’t perform these neat things. Well, it's not entirely true, because the SF fonts are at least partially variable, and have size-dependent tracking built in, which works only on Apple devices and does indeed increase legibility.
Ray Larabie said:Any typeface with multiple fonts contains variations of some kind.
Hrant H. Papazian said:
Readers feel everything. Whether they think they're seeing something or not. Hence the usefulness of the concept of subvisible (versus Beatrice Warde's vapid "invisible").
Andreas Stötzner said:
> Is it a design error or not?Yes it is. For me the whole typeface is an error.Has always been.Sorry to spoil the party.
Michael Jarboe said:
Maybe they can address these issues in Helvetica Later, the next release after Helvetica Now.
Chris Lozos said:
They should just mush all the too many versions together as one and call it, "Helvetica Enough Already."
Dan Reynolds said:
I am surprised that no one has mentioned this so far:In the original metal fonts of Neue Haas-Grotesk, some of the terminals are not flat, but instead have a slight angle.
practice is never as dogmatic [as] theory wants it to be.
I think that the understanding of Helvetica today is that its terminals are always flat (like they are in Univers), so maybe a digital Helvetica bringing this feature back could be viewed as being not the right decision, because of practitioners in the industry’s current perceptions … here I mean users, more than type designers (although Christian’s digital Neue Haas-Grotesk, which is a masterpiece of craftsmanship and design, didn’t give the terminals any angles, for instance). But a mistake? Putting angles on those terminals is not a mistake on the part of Monotype’s designers. Not in any way.