Michael Wolraich's picture

    New font

    By Michael Wolraich on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 2:39pm | Potpourri

    Love it? Hate it? Meh? Talk to me.

    Topics: 
    Potpourri

    Comments

    I like it.  I tend to favor clean, sans serif fonts.  Serifs are elitist.


    by DF on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 7:59pm

    i dont really remember the old font, but i think the headlines now for the current posts ought to be bigger or bolder or something.


    by Deadman on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 12:08am

    OK. I made them a little bigger. I don't want to make them too big b/c some dagbloggers are generous with their titles.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 12:49am

    now everything (all text) looks bold. i dont like.


    by Deadman on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 2:37am

    All text? In the headlines? That's the only thing I changed since your last comment.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 8:39am

    I'd prefer wingdings, but here are some other options...


    by CVille Dem on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 10:41am

    brilliant


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 12:38pm

    That's the funniest thing in the Univers.


    by Donal on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 4:48pm

    What fun! Thanks for posting.


    by Bluesplashy on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 10:24pm

    It's a little too big. I feel like I'm reading a book in large print.


    by Orlando on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 10:44am

    I smallerized it. Is it not too small now? Any altekocker's out there having trouble reading?


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 12:37pm

    perfect. the bold went away when you smallerized it. tho i bet you there are some people who will not like the smaller print.


    by Deadman on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 1:32pm

    The smallerized print is a relief to mine eyes.


    by CaliforniaPaige on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 1:44pm

    I believe that I've found a middle ground. Is the bold still gone? I really hate working in ems, but that was how the site was set up. (The last sentence is for developers only.)


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 2:59pm

    I still think it's a point or two too big, but I can live with it.


    by Orlando on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 3:21pm

    A point or two too big? No, I find it somewhat cramped, though still legible.

    The only thing I can think of is that it displays differently depending on your monitor and/or settings.

    I much preferred the version used for body type back around Nov. 1, a nice generous character size. What's being used now looks like the same typeface, just dropped a point size or so.

    Which typeface is it, Genghis? Is it indeed the same as before?

    Especially if you keep it this small, I'd boost the leading more. Extra space between lines would make it more legible. You could boost the size of text in the comment boxes too.


    by acanuck on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 4:10pm

    i agree with our northern friend. the font looks too smushed together. and the bold is back (the best way you can tell is by looking at my question column - in the comment section, i bold my questions to differentiate them from the answers and now they all look the same). im using the latest version of firefox, btw, if that matters (I was stunned to see the market share for firefox in the stats) .


    by Deadman on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 6:03pm

    Does that mean FF is higher than you expected for DAG, Deadman?  Or are you talking about overall market share for FF?


    by CaliforniaPaige on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 6:13pm

    Hey Dman - and by D, I mean dingbat - you bolded your previous batch of questions, and they're obviously bolded. You did not bold the last batch of questions. That's why you keep going back and forth between seeing bold and not bold. I assure the bold is working. See: 1. bold; 2. not bold, 3. deadman.Tongue out


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 7:51pm

    hey assmunch, and by assmunch, i mean assmunch, that's not it! the bold and not bold in this example look exactly the same to me. but seriously, thanks for all your hard work on this font thing ... of course, i didnt know there was a font thing that needed working on but still, nice work


    by Deadman on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 1:25am

    Really? I tried it on both mac and pc. I'll troubleshoot with you later b/c we need the bold.

    And don't call me assmunch. I only let my mom call me that.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 1:34am

    The font hadn't changed since we started until now. The old one was trebuchet (PC) or tahoma (Mac). The new one is Calibri for those who have it or Arial for those who don't. It's definitely a different font from 11/1. The availability of calibri may be one reason why different people see it differently. I increased the line spacing. Does that help? If I make it any bigger, you won't be able to see the paragraph breaks.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 7:45pm

    OK, everything now makes sense. We're talking about apples and oranges here.

    The people who say the font is too big or too bold are seeing their text display in Arial. My system appears to be displaying it in Calibri.

    Ten-point Arial looks noticeaby bigger and bolder than 10-point Calibri. The typefaces are quite similar, but not identical. And the biggest difference is in the apparent size of the letters.

    Since we've got both kinds of viewers here, the size you're using now is probably a good compromise. I find it a bit small; others find it a bit big. The extra leading helps.

    If I'm not mistaken, the original typeface that I preferred (Trebuchet) remains in use over in the list of Blogs and Topics at left. I like it 'cause its airier, with a lighter feel than most.


    by acanuck on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 10:02pm

    Thanks for the clarification. It's all calibri now. The side bar just looks different b/c it's 10pt and the main page is 11pt. A-man doesn't like trebuchet and requested calibri. I don't have strong feelings either way, though I'm a little sick of putzing with the fonts. Maybe verdana is closer in size than arial. I'll run a test to compare below. For those of you missing any of these, it will look like arial.

    Calibri: 10pt, 10pt bold, 11pt, 11pt bold

    Arial: 10pt, 10pt bold, 11pt, 11pt bold

    Verdana: 10pt, 10pt bold, 11pt, 11pt bold

    Trebuchet: 10pt, 10pt bold, 11pt, 11pt bold

    Tahoma: 10pt, 10pt bold, 11pt, 11pt bold

    Wow, calibri really is a lot smaller. Arial is the closest. That's annoying.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 10:29pm

    Let's do ems for the heck of it...

    Calibri: .9em, .9em bold, 1em, 1em bold

    Arial: .9em, .9em bold, 1em, 1em bold


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 10:47pm

    And pixels:

    Calibri: 13px, 13px bold, 14px, 14px bold

    Arial: 13px, 13px bold, 14px, 14px bold


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 10:53pm

    to me the bold and non-bold in calibri looks the same, at least at 10 and 11 pt. personally i like anything but calibri - it just reads so tight and small, at least on my machine, but im not a font nazi, so i'll deal.


    by Deadman on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 1:22am

    Maybe we should stick with Arial. Everyone's got that, and it's completely inoffensive.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 1:36am

    OK, it's Arial now. I actually think this is better than Calibri. Can you see the bold?


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 1:46am

    Yes I mostly like tho maybe one pt smaller would be better.

    also, the dagblog.com at top now looks really big and weird (at least on my computer). shouldn't we have ourselves a cool dagger logo by now anyway?!?


    by Deadman on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 3:07am

    This is the now the same point size as the LA Times and Yahoo News. I assume that they put a lot more money into choosing a font than we did, so I'm hereby making an executive decision as Chief Font Officer to keep it as is. As for a logo, I'm not artist, but do you like any of these?


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 12:48pm

    i like the first one - have your tried that sword as the 'l' in blog? can we get kim to take a crack at something quick?

    the third one is a definite no (tho that's the type of thing i was talking about above). just have it pointed down - otherwise it's way too phallic.

    as far as font goes, i love it. and good job on taking charge.


    by Deadman on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 1:11pm

    The first one is attractive, but reads as "dagtblog."

    I'd work the dagger into the "d."


    by Donal on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 1:17pm

    That dagger doesn't work into the letters very well. While I recognize Donal's T concern, I'm going to post it as imperfect but better than what we've got. I'm reluctant to ask someone to do a proper logo until we're ready for a branding effort.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 1:33pm

    Tahoma. 18 point. Bold. Throughout. Toss the dagger. Unless you're gonna have someone's eyes built in, and they're like shooting daggers, and killing readers and stuff. Or the flame shooting out the ass idea. Which was good, and is quite understated I think. Oh yeah. And mebbe rethink the name too. "Quinnblog (and co.)" Humph. I like it. Berry berry nice.

    by quinn esq on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 2:13pm

    If you drop the dagger a bit, the guard will read as a dash, and the dagger won't read as a letter.


    by Donal on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 2:14pm

    That makes the dagger go to low, and the logo is off balance. I'll play with it when I have more time later.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 2:23pm

    Hah.  Funny.  I liked the third one, until I read everyone's comments about the phallic-ness. Actually, I still prefer it.  Maybe the first would would be better with a little more space?  Or with the g and b closer together, and the dagger sitting on their spines?  The spacing right now makes the dagger more of a letter.  And I actually like the simple (er, sans-serif) daggers better.


    by CaliforniaPaige on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 1:52pm

    Hey, you un-clickabled it!  Give me back my "home" dagblog link!


    by CaliforniaPaige on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 1:55pm

    Oops. It's reclickabled.

    I had to put a line around it b/c it looked shitty without a white background, and the white background looked shitty without a border. I think it's OK now. An improvement. I need to go do work. If someone wants to lead a logo improvement charge, I will happily hand over the baton.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 2:17pm

    you go do work. but after that, how about tilting the dagger a bit to look less like a T and more like a slash (which incidentally is what daggers do). and i dont like the border at all, but i see why you needed it.

    nice job again.


    by Deadman on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 4:28pm

    Good in concept, but it doesn't look right. Next time we meet up, I can play around with it with you so you can see.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 5:35pm

    The logo looks fine, and the dagger needs to fall between syllables. I like it.


    by acanuck on Wed, 12/10/2008 - 5:00pm

    Huh?  I'm confused.  Is there a new font?


    by HSG on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 12:17am

    Tahoma rules. Now. Can we fight about Hillary vs Barack again?

    by quinn esq on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 12:18am

    Party's over; the Canadian font police have arrived.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 12:49am

    Latest Comments