I assembled reasonable screenshots from the keynote address introducing the Apple Watch (2014.09.09). They blew it a couple of times and used Helvetica, amusingly enough.
At any rate: It’s not
quite DIN, is it?
I’m attaching an archive of the images for anyone’s use.
Comments
Here it is compared with Akkurat Light and Regular. I only changed some of Akkurat’s spacing to match.
Surely Retina screen has obviated that necessity.
It would be nice to see this layout using roman U&lc, small caps, and italic.
OK, save that for the steampunk version.
Sure, it’s Modernism, and suits the design of the case and strap.
However, the device is primarily typographic and typophile that I am, I’ve always liked the classic effect of contrasting U&lc serif roman with (U&)lc italics and small caps—with old style figures of course.
IMO for a device which is primarily typographic, the typography should drive the overall design of the device, rather than the other way around.
That’s why, antiquarian that I am, I was fantasizing about steampunk.
Noting the variety of cases that people add on to their phones and tablets, I wonder if this device is similarly customizable and glamorizable.
As some guy once said—With some insight, "Legibility, [amounts to] what one is accustomed to. "
The demands of UI and signage typography are different from print, but it's still just visual information to be processed. If treated well and with due consideration to the medium and viewing conditions, a serif should work as well as a sans. But if you design a sign (or a UI) that people have to read and comprehend quickly and in less than optimal conditions you're probably better off using a sans serif (preferably designed for the purpose) - if only because that's what people are used to in that context.
Mid-century (20th), the classic modernists designed with an economy of form and careful proportion, while maintaining an inscrutable surface of visual interest in the materials they used.
In architecture, marble veins and wood grain for Mies, Corbusier’s béton brut.
And in print, Brodovitch’s didones, Lois’ Cheltenham.
All those beautiful 1950s and 60s coffee table books with their exemplary modernist layouts—set in Garamond, Baskerville and Bembo (if not Poliphilus), with pointed use of small caps and italics.
It’s not necessary to go skeuo to get the satisfying sheen of organic texture, it’s there in serifed type forms.
And from the communicational imperative of contrast and disambiguation for hierarchical text organization, the venerable triad of Roman U&lc, Italic U&lc and roman small caps has it over reductive use of one font.
Next, I spose ima hafta show, rather than tell.
Watches are generally conceived of in the same materials as jewellery, for a monochromatic color scheme, often silver or gold.
That is why the International Style of layout, with its dependence on white space and color to wring meaning out of a single corporate sans typeface, is problematic for a wearable device.
The Apple Watch provides silver and gold cases, and many view options, but these are geared to the corporate UI sans typography on a black background, with colors that do not necessarily match the rest of the outfit the user is wearing. I don’t know whether this is an issue, but my feeling is that other typographic layout strategies such as mixing sans with serif, or using the classic old style variants, offer better hierarchical distinction than International Style, and are therefore more suitable for monochromatic layouts. Here is how the old style would work; it would be off-brand for Apple, but there are other fruit in the orchard.
Where did that come from? Is DIN really known for its excellent visibility at small sizes? Its design seems to suggest it's more legible at small sizes than Helvetica, but I've never heard DIN is famous for its excellent visibility at small sizes. First off, I don't know what excellent visibility at small sizes even means, and secondly I thought DIN was designed for signage, which has nothing to do with visibility at small sizes.
I absolutely don't see how DIN could be famous for its excellent visibility at small sizes. For starters, it features dark spots which are too prominent for small use. DIN works for signage but I would never set a book in DIN. Besides, even if DIN works at small sizes, I've never heard that DIN is known for that, let alone famous for it.
And again, what does "visibility at small sizes" even mean? Visibility has to do with distance. Who's looking at 10pt DIN from meters away?