Yes, I’m playing with the blog’s fonts again. I really liked the Palatino body type I was using, but when my MacBook got sick I was forced back to the old Windows machine. And I must say I didn’t like the “Palatino Linotype” the Windows machine was substituting. Oh sure, I’d checked it out when I first made the change, but I didn’t spend much time sitting there looking at it and reading posts. My apologies to you Windows users for having inflicted it on you. The rendering may be related to my screens, but both were top of the line four years ago, so I consider them equivalent.
I’ve switched back to Museo Sans for the body type and hope you find it more readable. I retained Palatino in the header, because I’m particularly fond of the font’s capital P; it doesn’t look quite as good in Palatino Lino, but I’m indulging myself. I’d love to hear your opinions on the fonts here; be sure to mention which OS and browser you use.
August 2017: See Colophon for fonts currently in use.
22 thoughts on “Changing fonts, again”
It is much better now PT, at least on my Win 7 / Firefox 16.0.1 combo. 😀
Good! Glad to hear it. Thx.
I love museo so in any case, good choice 😉
It is a lovely font, isn’t it? I’d not even heard of it until about a year ago (retirement will do that to a person).
looks great… so long as it’s not Comic Sans I’m happy 🙂
That’s one font I wouldn’t inflict on anyone.
I like this font. Not too big, not too tiny. Nor crowded. Easy to read. And with my eyes deteriorating, that’s a plus.
Hmm, it didn’t even occur to me that it might be my old eyes that didn’t like that font on Windows.
I used to collect fonts. I had hundreds of them. Unfortunately, when I switched computers, I left them all behind. Crap. I didn’t even think about them when I switched. I transferred all my work, of course, all my files, but I didn’t think about the fonts. And, naturally, I wiped the old hard drive and re-installed the OS. Oh well. It’s not like I actually needed them. The only time I ever used them was in creating images.
I understand that collecting thing. I once had about 1200 fonts on my computer (I think I still have them on an old hard drive somewhere.) No good reason. I just like fonts.
Like the header – it seems to fit your personality somehow – headers can be different from the body. (Using a MacBook). The body is OK- maybe I’ll get used to it…just not sure yet…it’s clean, but there’s something I can’t put my finger on – it looks really good if I enlarge the screen….have to ponder on it….
I’ve floundered for years to find the perfect header, the one that is really “me.” Trouble is, my moods change, and what looks like the perfect choice one day looks not-so-great the next.
Museo sans looks very “sterile” to me; it has more personality than a lot of san serifs, but it’s still pretty cold. Personally I’ve never thought any san serif font looked as warm as a serif. But the serif font I liked on this computer just didn’t have the same snap on Windows. Old eyes maybe, as mentioned above. Everything seems smaller these days, and in smaller sizes, serif fonts get fuzzy faster than sans serif. For me, anyway.
yeah, you are right about eyes and serifs…but serifs have an air of complexity about them…form or function? It’s always a puzzlement.
Nothing wrong with changes once in awhile, though. (but your “brand” or header font might want to stay the same?
Serifs most definitely have a function, at least in print. They aid in letterform recognition and in guiding the eye along the line of type. That’s in addition to their obvious decorative value. They were not used on early, low-res computer screens because they didn’t display properly at smaller sizes and just muddied the screen. With hi res screens, that problem no longer exists. At the same time, new sans serif fonts have been designed specifically for use on video displays. I’m unsure of the current thinking among the experts but my impression is that they are about equally divided over which style is best for screen readability.
Yes, I know I should pick a style and stick with it for header, logo, etc. I’ve wished for years I could devise the “perfect” header to be my identity forevermore. I’ve hoped I’d wake up one day and have that Eureka! moment. But it doesn’t happen. I’ve about resigned myself to the header being just another part of my pied, ever-changing, mash-up of a blog.
Statistically, this was true, but was it a manner of training, or some innate property of the serif style? I often wonder if we are moving beyond this with so much of the internet being san-serif. Are we training our younger generations to prefer san-serif?
I know I often pick up and read something in serif and think it seems archaic, almost quaint. And while I have no problem with it, I’ve come to prefer san-serif simply because I’m so exposed to it. But, in print, I still use serif fonts, and online I still use san-serif. That is the convention of the day. I wonder if ereaders will change it much. Most of them use whichever font the author preferred when generating their novel.
That’s pretty much been my training — serif for print, san serif for screens. How much of that is habit and “what I’m used to seeing,” I don’t know. I assume most readers of print are used to reading and expect to see large blocks of text in serif fonts, and have grown used to sans serif on screens. Habit, custom, familiarity, personal preference — they all factor in. However, I’d be interested in seeing the results of an in-depth scientific study by readability experts, as opposed to just what’s trendy or popular or fashionable among graphic designers.
Yes, serif fonts can and often do seem quaint and archaic, or at the very least, older than sans serif. That’s what you go to when you want to look old, old-fashioned, antiquated, etc. Makes them a good choice for a Pied Type logo — if I could ever settle on “good” and stop looking for “perfect.” Heh, fat chance.
Lots of fonts were never intended for computers (or readability?).
Oddly I actually had a whole semester course in lettering and fonts – they are intriguing.
Changing stuff around is fun – it’s a blog.
Some bloggers seem to be trying to head towards a goal where branding will be something to consider.
Glad it’s not that important to me at this stage -it’s a blog.
Oh sure. Font designers prior to the advent of computers never imagined anything but print on paper. I’d have loved that course you took; nothing like that was ever available to me. But I suppose there’s still time, eh?
I can’t speak for most bloggers, but I give a lot of thought to branding. A unique name that reflects what the blog is about (or would, if people knew what it meant), a URL that is all mine, an avatar unlike any other I’ve seen (although it fails miserably at being self-explanatory or self-promotional). If I weren’t seeking branding and identity, I wouldn’t be busily customizing the WordPress templates to make them my own. (Of course, I also wouldn’t keep changing things …) And every aspect of it is a game to me, a hobby.
Your branding is your unique writing style and presentation. I’ve never seen anything else like it. You captivate and intrigue and keep us reading to find out where you’re going with it all. I knew when I threw all my topics into one stew that true branding was out the window. I would never establish myself as “that independent’s political blog” or that “old lady’s blog about her life,” or that “Denver-based conservationist’s blog.” But, hey … it’s a blog.
I think you are pretty firmly established as you in Blog Land….but don’t ask me to put a label on you – labels are toooo restricting. Your avatar is very much you though – great success there
Hehe, yep, an asterisk, that’s me. An afterthought, a footnote. And a very casual one at that.
actually it’s more like fireworks
Hmm, that’s one interpretation I’d not considered. I can attest, though, that it started life as an asterisk snatched from a now-forgotten font; I tweaked it a bit and made it red. End of story.