Microsoft has developed Kermit, a new typeface specifically designed to improve readability for young children. Based on research into how children perceive letterforms, Kermit incorporates features like open counters, wide proportions, distinct ascenders and descenders, and simplified letter shapes to reduce visual confusion. The goal is to enhance the learning-to-read experience and make reading more accessible and enjoyable for early readers. Kermit is freely available under the SIL Open Font License.
Sparks is a new open-source typeface designed to seamlessly integrate sparklines—small, inline charts—directly within text. It uses Unicode characters to represent various data points, allowing users to visually represent trends and variations without needing any code or specialized software. By simply typing specific characters from the Sparks font, users can create upward slopes, downward trends, peaks, valleys, and flat lines, making it easy to embed mini-visualizations within sentences, paragraphs, or spreadsheets for a more immediate understanding of data. The typeface aims to be broadly compatible and accessible, providing a lightweight and portable solution for incorporating simple data visualizations in any text-based context.
Hacker News users generally expressed interest in Sparks, praising its cleverness and potential utility for conveying data quickly within text. Some discussed potential use cases like embedding sparklines in terminal output, Markdown files, and spreadsheets. Concerns were raised about readability and accessibility, especially for users with visual impairments or using low-resolution displays. The fixed-width nature of the font also led to discussions about limitations in representing varied data ranges and the potential awkwardness of rendering in proportional fonts. Several commenters suggested improvements, such as variable-width characters and options for controlling the baseline. The project's novelty and simplicity were appreciated, but practical applications and broader adoption remain to be seen, according to the commenters.
"Kerning, the Hard Way" details the painstaking process of manually kerning a font, specifically the author's Octet typeface. The post emphasizes that proper kerning isn't simply about consistent spacing, but about creating optically even gaps between letter pairs, which often requires asymmetrical adjustments. This involves meticulous visual examination of each pair and subtle nudging, a task complicated by the impact of neighboring letters and the varying shapes within a typeface. Ultimately, the article highlights the significant time investment and subjective judgment required for quality kerning, portraying it as a demanding yet essential step in font design for achieving visual harmony and readability.
HN users generally praised the article for its clear explanation of kerning and the complexities involved. Several commenters shared their own experiences with kerning, highlighting its subjective nature and the challenges of achieving optimal results. Some discussed the role of experience and "eye" in kerning, while others mentioned the usefulness of tools like kerning tables. A few users debated the merits of metric vs. optical kerning, and the impact of different rendering engines. One compelling comment thread explored the limitations of automated kerning and the importance of considering context and surrounding characters. Another pointed out the significance of kerning in non-Latin scripts, adding another layer of difficulty.
Helvetica is ubiquitous in New York City's signage, especially in the subway system. Originally designed as a neutral, legible typeface, it became the standard for wayfinding and official communications, conveying authority and efficiency. The post explores this pervasiveness, showcasing numerous examples of Helvetica's use across various applications from street signs to building names. Its widespread adoption, though intended to create a unified and clear urban environment, has arguably led to a homogenized visual landscape. The essay ultimately suggests that while functional, Helvetica's dominance potentially diminishes the city's unique visual character.
HN commenters largely appreciate the deep dive into Helvetica's use in NYC signage, particularly its historical context and evolution. Some debate the merits of Helvetica versus other sans-serif fonts, with a few suggesting alternatives like Franklin Gothic or Akzidenz-Grotesk would be better choices. Others highlight the importance of considering the overall design, not just the font, pointing out that even Helvetica can be used poorly. A couple of commenters offer additional examples of Helvetica's pervasiveness, referencing its use in government and transportation systems. One compelling observation notes the shift away from Helvetica in newer signage, suggesting a changing aesthetic landscape in the city.
Some websites display boxes instead of flag emojis in Chrome on Windows due to a font substitution issue. Windows uses its own Segoe UI Emoji font for most emoji, but defaults to a lower-quality bitmap font called "Segoe UI Symbol" specifically for flag emojis. This bitmap font lacks the necessary glyphs for many flag combinations, resulting in the missing emoji. Websites can force Chrome to use the correct, vector-based Segoe UI Emoji font by explicitly specifying it in their CSS, ensuring flags render properly.
Commenters on Hacker News largely discuss the technical details behind the issue, focusing on the surprising interaction between Chrome, Windows, and the specific way flags are rendered using two combined code points. Several point out the complexity and unexpected behaviors that arise from combining characters, particularly when dealing with different systems and fonts. Some users express frustration with the inconsistency and lack of clear documentation around emoji rendering. A few commenters offer potential workarounds or solutions, including using a fallback font or pre-rendering the flags as images. Others delve into the history and evolution of emoji standards and the challenges of maintaining compatibility across platforms. A compelling comment thread explores the tradeoffs between using the combined code points for flags versus using dedicated single code points, highlighting the performance implications and rendering complexities. Another interesting discussion revolves around the role of fonts and the challenges of designing fonts that support a rapidly expanding set of emojis.
Summary of Comments ( 35 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43704904
HN commenters were largely critical of Kermit, questioning the research backing its claims of improved readability for children. Several pointed out that the typeface appeared similar to Comic Sans, raising concerns about its professionalism and the potential for overuse. Some questioned the need for a specialized typeface for children, suggesting that established, well-designed fonts were already sufficient. A few commenters offered mild praise for its playful appearance, but overall the reception was skeptical, with many expressing doubt about its actual benefits and questioning the methodology of the research cited. The lack of readily available comparisons to other typefaces was also criticized.
The Hacker News post titled "Kermit: A typeface for kids – making reading easier" generated a modest number of comments, mostly focusing on the typeface's design choices and their perceived efficacy.
Several commenters questioned the evidence supporting the claim that Kermit improves readability for children. They expressed skepticism about the research methodology and the generalizability of the findings. One commenter specifically asked for links to the research papers, highlighting a desire for more scientific rigor behind the design choices. Another commenter pointed out that dyslexia manifests differently across individuals, suggesting a one-size-fits-all typeface might not be the most effective approach. This skepticism towards the purported benefits was a recurring theme.
The design choices themselves were also discussed. Some commenters felt the typeface was too "cartoony" or "childish," potentially hindering the transition to more traditional typefaces later on. The exaggerated features, while intended to aid recognition, were seen by some as potentially counterproductive. Conversely, other commenters appreciated the distinct design, arguing that its uniqueness could make reading more engaging for children.
There was also a discussion around the practical implications of adopting such a specialized typeface. One commenter mentioned the challenges of implementing non-standard fonts in educational settings, particularly with digital materials. Another user questioned the long-term benefits, wondering if the improvements were sustained beyond the initial learning phase.
A few commenters drew parallels to other typefaces designed for specific needs, such as those for dyslexic readers. This comparison highlighted the ongoing search for typographic solutions to improve reading accessibility. One comment suggested that focusing on letter spacing and line height might be more impactful than altering letterforms.
Finally, some commenters shared anecdotal experiences with children and their reading habits, offering personal perspectives on the potential usefulness of Kermit. While these comments provided some context, they lacked the scientific backing that other commenters were looking for.
In summary, the comments section reflects a mixed reception to the Kermit typeface. While some appreciated the effort to improve reading accessibility for children, many expressed skepticism about the evidence and practicality of the design choices. The discussion highlighted the complexity of designing typefaces for specific needs and the importance of rigorous research to support such claims.