Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwasehasdwi | Hacker News Reader

What a wonderful way to add massive complexity to font rendering while delivering spectacularly little value.

Don't get me wrong, it's cool, I just don't see the point. And I don't look forward to my battery life being used for pointless sugar.

View on HN

Best not to confuse this demo of their parametric font, with the idea of parametric fonts in the first place. This page tries to vary the font as you scroll etc., which is just a (suboptimal) way of interactively demonstrating the font parameters, but not the point.

For a better demo (that does not use the same tech), see http://www.metaflop.com/modulator -- you vary the parameters, then a fixed font is generated that you can download and use. (I mentioned this in another comment below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14604890)

As for the value: the entire Computer Modern family of typefaces (used in TeX/LaTeX and friends) was generated with METAFONT which embodies the idea of font generation through "pens, programs, and parameters" -- the regular, bold, italic (even typewriter) variants of the font, and at various point sizes, are generated from common font definitions. Similarly the shapes of the loops in say p and d, etc. This ensures consistency and lets you experiment. (Though to be honest, very few people have successfully designed good font families with this approach.)

The articles that I mentioned in the other comment are better at seeing what's the point.

That metaflop link is not only a great visual example of what makes this tech cool, but is also fun to use. The immediate feedback which shows input-output relations reminds me of fun had while messing with character-creation sliders in games like Elder Scrolls and Dark Souls.

> What a wonderful way to add massive complexity to font rendering while delivering spectacularly little value.

I'll attempt to explain the value, because I don't think this demo is doing a good job of showing that. parametric and variable fonts might seem like "pointless sugar," but it's the combination of mostly two things that make this a huge deal: responsive typography for better legibility, and reducing the number and size of font files served over the web.

let's say I have four font files being used on my website -- regular, bold, italic, bold italic. let's say that's 50k per file, so 200k for four network requests. with a variable font, it's maybe ~70k for a single request. that's a huge improvement, but it's not even all that these fonts offer.

responsive typography (adjusting for the right font weight and characteristics depending on the size of the display) is very important for legibility.[1] The slick ultrathin fonts that look good on a 27" 5k display are unreadable on a smaller display. fonts optimized for body text look terrible when used at large sizes, hence the existence of "display" typefaces. there is so much bloat in having tons of different files for this, when the libraries that interpolate fonts in font creation software[2] can be used on the fly instead of during a compilation step.

font rendering is cheap, sending fonts over the wire is not -- so when you frame this new font tech as something that is just as much about speeding up the web as it is about speeding up the design process, it's a little less pointless.

1. https://alistapart.com/blog/post/variable-fonts-for-responsi...

2. https://github.com/LettError/MutatorMath

You can look at it from two ways. It might save some network bandwidth when designers want multiple fonts, but is it worth adding even more complexity to browsers?

Does the average user really care about fonts? I would say definitely not. Most people don't even notice the font.

> Does the average user really care about fonts? I would say definitely not. Most people don't even notice the font.

most people don't think consciously about the font, but that doesn't mean they don't notice or that their experience will be the same reading in one font vs another. some companies spend a lot of money on this. facebook and google, for example, do a/b testing on fonts to see which perform best in ads.

but users also care when a font becomes illegible on the wrong size display, and/or wrong pixel density. the less pixel dense a display is, for example, the bolder a font needs to be. this new tech makes it super easy for developers to actually execute these best practices, eliminates multiple steps from the asset pipeline, reduces network requests, and reduces file size. check out the google fonts analytics page[1] for an idea of how many trillions of fonts served that this will affect.

1. https://fonts.google.com/analytics

Making use of the fonts on the users machine requires even less bandwidth while allowing the user to view things in whatever font they find easiest on their eyes. Including fonts on web sites has always been about designers getting their way. This is just more of the same.

Couldn't you say the same about images?

Besides, the OP clearly described the benefits in being able to adjust the font according to screen density. Using system fonts doesn't magically solve that issue.

> Couldn't you say the same about images?

I would, if the user's machine came with a preinstalled set of images that were a close match to the need. I don't think the web browser exposes the user's standard icon sets on the web, but it absolutely should.

> Besides, the OP clearly described the benefits in being able to adjust the font according to screen density. Using system fonts doesn't magically solve that issue.

Using any font made in the last 20 years solves that issue. Vector fonts scale to any screen density just fine.

On top of that, if you don't shove a webfont down the user's throat, a user can even pick their favorite font size and density to match their screen and viewing preferences.

Sure it does, let the client render the font based on what is best for the given user on the given device.

You're more or less describing DPI scaling, no?

Wow, what a cynical viewpoint for a very cool, useful technology that we've been begging for for quite a while. Maybe you're confusing the demo with practical applications, but this is a demo.

It's a shame such a negative, snarky comment got so many upvotes. You could express disinterest in this parametric font stuff without doing it in such a nasty way.

On the other hand, it allows for a clear, concise counterpoint to be upvoted and seen fairly quickly by those that shared that view, so they may see something to change their mind prior to expressing similar views.

Edit: To clarify, a counterpoint to the initial negative comment...

If you think that's complex, read the spec for the TrueType hinting VM sometime.

I found this justification particularly ridiculous: "Imagine shop windows that react according to the movements of passers-by."

Who would think this is compelling enough to put within the elevator pitch for the concept?

I think a better justification along the same lines would be: "Imagine shop windows that react according to the weather to always make themselves as easy to see through as possible, regardless of whether it's overcast or a sunny day."

Get your window in the desired dimensions, and let some automated protocol make sure it's as easy to see through as possible for all your potential customers.

Write your content, and let the setting in the OS or application automatically make sure it's as legible as possible regardless the size of screen, pixel density, and expected viewing distance.

That is really supposed to be a major selling point of a new font standard?

The point I was trying to get across is that the creators seem to have become intoxicated on their own fumes. That use is a crazy small niche, and if you really wanted to blow money on eye catching displays, there are any number of more creative and engaging ways to do so.

(I used to know a person who had the privilege of doing the windows for Barney's in LA, and another designer who did amazing creative interactive displays for the flagship Levi's store in Soho, London.)

> That use is a crazy small niche, and if you really wanted to blow money on eye catching displays, there are any number of more creative ways to do so.

I'm not sure if that's supposed to be a followup to the simile, but it sounds just as likely that you've missed the point I was trying to relay, so I'll elaborate.

The point is not to wow your customers, it's to make things clear. Different tactics work for that in different circumstances. A high density phone display, an older desktop display, and a 4K desktop display may all benefit from slightly different settings such as thickness in a font. Allowing the OS to optimize for functional legibility based on device and usage specifications is a good capability, in my opinion. That the demo allows you to see how the system works easily through dynamic changes does not mean that's the intended use.

As other have pointed out, just the ability to ship one font for your website and allow it to generate the correct variation based on responsive web design parameters is itself a win in the bandwidth it saves.

You don't see the point, but you think it delivers little value. You don't understand it, but you're going to assert as fact that it's unhelpful. I don't wish you luck with that perspective, it's ignorance followed promptly by pontificating, not merely contrary or skeptical.

"I don't see the point" is not the same as "I don't understand the point".

Pshaw, where's my raytraced font.

I also wasn't that impressed by the fact that I had to wait a few seconds for it to work. A font demo -especially a parametric font demo- really should be instant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com