Is the New Font Less Readable and More Decorative?

  • Thread starter Vanadium 50
  • Start date
In summary: Then it is rendering. I didn't see that Greg had switched to Lora, so I thought that the posts should be in a sans serif font. I agree with you, it is...
  • #1
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2023 Award
33,519
20,105
Was there a font change? It still looks like a sans serif font, but less readable and maybe more decorative.
 
  • Like
Likes Enigman
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Yes, PT Sans for me was unique but less readable. I switched to Roboto which is what Google uses for Android. I can put screenshots side by side and we can discuss.
 
  • #3
I think the new one looks better on the front page, but worse in the message body. Substantially worse.
 
  • #5
In particular, the kerning looks terrible. (Kerning is the space between letters) That makes it much harder to read.
 
  • #6
Here they are back to back. Click on the thumbs. For me Roboto is clearly more readable as PT Sans is more dense and has some different styled characters. Thoughts?

Roboto
roboto.jpg


PT Sans
ptsans.jpg
 
  • #7
Vanadium 50 said:
In particular, the kerning looks terrible. (Kerning is the space between letters) That makes it much harder to read.

I agree with V50! It's much harder to read.
 
  • #8
e.bar.goum said:
I agree with V50! It's much harder to read.
What makes it hard to read? Take a look at my screenshots.
 
  • #9
Greg Bernhardt said:
What makes it hard to read? Take a look at my screenshots.

Like V50 said, the kerning is a bit odd. The fact that it's also quite a lot lighter than PT Sans is also troubling.
 
  • #10
Looking at your screen shots, I agree with the others that roboto sucks and PT Sans is definitely more readable.

Looking at it more carefully, I think for me at least part of it is familiarity. PT Sans looks like what I'm used to and roboto just looks weird. It isn't really all that unreadable.
 
  • #12
Look's okay to me.
 
  • #13
Greg Bernhardt said:
Trying Source Sans Pro. Better?

Definitely better than roboto! Could you do another side-by-side screenshot of it and PT Sans?
 
  • #16
e.bar.goum said:
I agree with V50! It's much harder to read.

e.bar.goum said:
Like V50 said, the kerning is a bit odd. The fact that it's also quite a lot lighter than PT Sans is also troubling.

phinds said:
Looking at your screen shots, I agree with the others that roboto sucks and PT Sans is definitely more readable.
I must be a weird one then. I liked Roboto and imo it was easier to read. Oh well...
 
  • #17
Psinter said:
I must be a weird one then. I liked Roboto and imo it was easier to read. Oh well...
What do you think of right now?
 
  • #18
Greg Bernhardt said:
What do you think of right now?
Looks a little bigger and I think the previous to this one was better. This one I'm having a little trouble to assimilate and read, but I can get used to it. I would definitely go back to the previous to this one, but seeing as I appear to be a weird one I dare not say it. That's my feedback, let's see what others think. :smile:
 
  • #19
Just to confirm that it is indeed bigger. Letters are getting cut in the forum template.
 
  • #20
Psinter said:
Just to confirm that it is indeed bigger. Letters are getting cut in the forum template.
Screenshot?
 
  • #21
Greg Bernhardt said:
Screenshot?
Of course:
JngTy1l.png


Small letter 'g'. You can also see it in your username on your posts. :oldshy:

Edit: In Firefox and a Chromium based browser.
 
  • #22
One thing I've noticed is that, at least for me, the contrast between the darker text of an unread thread and the lighter text of a read thread is less than before, making it more difficult to quickly see which threads you've already read and which you haven't.
 
  • Like
Likes jtbell
  • #23
Greg Bernhardt said:
Screenshot?
Here's another example of a cutoff 'g'. It's worse here than in your name.
(Firefox, Mac OS)
cutoff.gif
 
  • Like
Likes Silicon Waffle
  • #24
+1 to the font sizes. I keep zooming out to make it all a bit smaller.
 
  • #25
The current font doesn't render on my Mac or my iPad.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
DrClaude said:
The current font doesn't render on my Mac or my iPad.

You wouldn't like it anyway. :wink:

I don't like the new serif font. It's hard to read at small sizes. I also don't like the mix of serif and sans seif fonts; they mix best when they are not read together, as in a headline and a subject line. Mixing them in body text, medals, name, date and time, is very disruptive. I spend a modest amount of time on the web, and this is the first time my reaction has been "Doggone this is hard to read!"

Greg, what problem are you trying to solve?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Bandersnatch, micromass and DrClaude
  • #27
Vanadium 50 said:
You wouldn't like it anyway. :wink:

I don't like the new serif font.
Then it is rendering. I didn't see that Greg had switched to Lora, so I thought that the posts should be in a sans serif font. I agree with you, it is ugly!
 
  • #28
Vanadium 50 said:
Greg, what problem are you trying to solve?
Same question here. I liked the old font much better. If we keep the new one I'll tell my browser to override the forum settings.
 
  • Like
Likes Silicon Waffle and DrClaude
  • #29
Back to PT Sans. Oddly I just cycled through some very common Google fonts. Not sure why they didn't work here.
 
  • Like
Likes mfb, Silicon Waffle and DrClaude
  • #30
For what it is worth (probably not much):
  • I like the old (and, again, current) look of the front page,
  • but I found the serif fonts for the big portions of text in the topics an improvement.
Actually, as I'm typing this, I see that the font in the composition box is still serif. Don't know if that is intentional.
 
  • #31
Krylov said:
Don't know if that is intentional.
I see that too. Must have missed something.
 
  • #32
I have the impression that the font size in the edit box is smaller than it was.
 
  • #33
Samy_A said:
I have the impression that the font size in the edit box is smaller than it was.
Bizarre since I never touched anything with the editor
 
  • #34
Greg Bernhardt said:
Bizarre since I never touched anything with the editor
And now is again larger, as it was before.
Maybe it is not the font size but the change from sans serif->serif->sans serif that gave me that impression.

Anyway, it's good now (for me at least), thanks.
 
  • #35
Krylov said:
...
Actually, as I'm typing this, I see that the font in the composition box is still serif. Don't know if that is intentional.
Greg Bernhardt said:
Back to PT Sans. Oddly I just cycled through some very common Google fonts. Not sure why they didn't work here.
I think it works
HTML:
<link href="//fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=PT+Sans:400,600" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css">
CSS:
html{...
font-size:16px;font-family:'PT Sans',san-serif;line-height:1.5;...}
 

Similar threads

  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
2
Views
132
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
769
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
23
Views
612
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top