Topic: Is there anything objectively wrong with Comic Sans?
Metæ started this discussion 11 years ago #45,801
Or is it just a fashion thing? Is Comic Sans harder to read than say Helvetica or Times New Roman or one of the "serious people fonts"?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #604,310
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 26 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #604,311
@OP please consult the experts you might find through an Internet web search of your choice. The mora of this fora only include two certified typographic experts.
In short: yes, it really is terrible.
In short: yes, it really is terrible.
Million Moose March joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #604,313
The capital letter D has a weird shape that pisses me right off
Metæ (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 54 seconds later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #604,314
@604,311 (C)
Yeah but why are serifs or curlicues any better? Just because the Romans had them doesnt mean theyre actually good.
Yeah but why are serifs or curlicues any better? Just because the Romans had them doesnt mean theyre actually good.
Million Moose March replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #604,316
I could easily like something like Comic Sans if it was more careful looking, like someone tried to keep straight bits straight and curved parts even. Some of the letters already look OK.
(Edited 55 seconds later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #604,317
eat a dickAnonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 26 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #604,329
@604,314 (Metæ)
What I have come to understand is we as a Western culture with a roman character alphabet tend to have certain foundations of visual language. There are many fashions of typographic characters and there also is a distinct history of typefaces that can be studied, critiqued, used, and iterated upon. Much like the other technical and applied tradesfolk whom have learned routines for completing tasks there is a certain approach to the formal practice of typesetting that people can enjoy. Comic sans comes from merely a blink ago in the history of typography which has at large been a connecting and emotive layer to enhance the presentation of text.
That all leads to condemnation of comic sans because it has a very limited character set, poor letter contrasts, and aspect ratios that are not efficient with space. There is one weight I am familiar with and I think that some of the bold and italic characters we see people use are modified in ways that typographers have found will modify some of the core tenets of a font. This all makes it technically disappointing and then we often see people use it in such terrible ways that it has become an aesthetic to fully avoid in order to prevent association with any thing that is in such poor taste.
What I have come to understand is we as a Western culture with a roman character alphabet tend to have certain foundations of visual language. There are many fashions of typographic characters and there also is a distinct history of typefaces that can be studied, critiqued, used, and iterated upon. Much like the other technical and applied tradesfolk whom have learned routines for completing tasks there is a certain approach to the formal practice of typesetting that people can enjoy. Comic sans comes from merely a blink ago in the history of typography which has at large been a connecting and emotive layer to enhance the presentation of text.
That all leads to condemnation of comic sans because it has a very limited character set, poor letter contrasts, and aspect ratios that are not efficient with space. There is one weight I am familiar with and I think that some of the bold and italic characters we see people use are modified in ways that typographers have found will modify some of the core tenets of a font. This all makes it technically disappointing and then we often see people use it in such terrible ways that it has become an aesthetic to fully avoid in order to prevent association with any thing that is in such poor taste.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 12 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #604,330
Comic Sans is a modern classic. Much like a 16th century Garamond, it will stand the test of time
Killer Lettuce⭐️ !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 46 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #604,336
It seems to cause an intensely negative reaction within the autistic mind. Presumably, its shape is somehow inherently offensive or distasteful to autistics.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
dw joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #604,352
@604,330 (F)
> Comic Sans is a modern classic. Much like a 16th century Garamond, it will stand the test of time
> Comic Sans is a modern classic. Much like a 16th century Garamond, it will stand the test of time
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 4 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #604,387
Anonymous F replied with this 11 years ago, 37 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #604,397
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #604,411
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 59 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #604,425
Metæ (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #604,430
@604,330 (F)
I'm sure typography nerds were throwing fits about Garamond in the 16th century because it wasn't a true, classic font like Chancery Hand.
I'm sure typography nerds were throwing fits about Garamond in the 16th century because it wasn't a true, classic font like Chancery Hand.