Hacker News Reader

This claim that system fonts are the "bottom of the barrel" is just so clearly false that I don't understand how you can be an advocate of typography and say it. Both Microsoft and Apple put huge amounts of effort into typography, contract or employ well-regarded designers, and their outputs are themselves well-regarded.

If you wanted to say "most of what's on Google Fonts is bottom of the barrel", you'd have a colorable argument. But that isn't what you said.

San Francisco is a great font. Arial is a perfectly functional semi-clone of Helvetica, Times New Roman is a decent interpretation of Plantin. Roboto is an interesting mash-up of Helvetica, DIN, and a few others.

System font from a web standpoint means you get one of these depending on the user's choice of phone, desktop, and/or browser.

It is somewhat like buying art because the frame covers a blemish on the wall. That the print inside the frame might be of a famous impressionist painting does not mean that the frame or the print necessarily go with the room.

The car analogy involves a car rental place - that they may give you any one of several newish, functional and even stylish vehicles does not change that you may often wind up being paired with a vehicle mismatched for your function.

Around the time Matthew Carter was creating Georgia, one of the most widely-used system fonts in the world, for Microsoft, he was also widely considered one of the best typographers in the world. Georgia is not hotel room wall art.

There are many laughably horrible attempts at fonts out there on free font sites (I remember my days learning to write software in the early 00s), sure. But there are also high quality professionally designed and typeset fonts available for free, including those of the system variety. The argument is comparing the latter to expensive designer fonts, not the former to high quality fonts.

> You’ve been combative throughout this thread

Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm combative. (Not that I care)

> typography or design as disciplines that warrant serious thought.

We are talking about fonts here, more specifically fonts used in software, more specifically the quality of free fonts used in software. Not 'design' as a whole which is much more than that.

> System fonts are the absolute bottom of the barrel.

If you say so.

> You're associating your product with the ocean of amateur work on the internet, giving the impression you copy pasted a template.

Reusing a font means you're copy-pasting your article/app/etc from a template? Erm ok.

> There are some high quality free fonts typically backed by massive organizations with actual typographic expertise.

'Some'? Like 1000? 10000? How many fonts does one application need? 'typically'? How 'typically'? And I'm not being pedantic - your statements are pretty meaningless without actual numbers.

> Professional fonts are well designed at all weights, they're carefully spaced, they include much larger character sets to support more languages, contain features like lining and non-lining figures, variable font weights, small caps... are those all slight differences?

What is a 'Professional font'? lmao

Plenty of free fonts have all of the features you've listed, and plenty of non-free fonts don't.

> There’s a reason so many articles exist with titles like “Google Fonts That Don’t Suck”. Most of them do.

Again 'so many' and 'most'... you should provide specific (at least approximate) numbers, otherwise this says nothing about how many good free fonts are actually out there.

> Arguing that all design is BS is just lazy

Well I didn't say that, pretending that I did is pretty lazy tho.

> I highly recommend practicaltypography.com, a free web book that discusses all of this and more, including why system fonts are bad and why a professional typeface is worth paying for.

Oh geez! A FREE book which tells you why you should pay for 'professional' fonts while at the same time selling them to you with affiliate links! Thank you sir!

You should care if you're being combatative, but, even more importantly, quoting previous comments the way you're doing doesn't work well on HN and is also a flamewar trope. Everybody can read the comments you're responding to. Just refer back to them in prose. A single quote, maybe 2 in a long comment, fine, but what you're doing now creates the impression that you're sort of rebutting what the previous commenter said as you read them, sentence by sentence, which is a tell that you're not actually thinking about what they said.

Also: they're pretty clearly wrong, so you shouldn't need any of this to refute them.

I am rebutting what the previous commenter said, sentence by sentence (almost), I don't know why that tells you that I'm not actually thinking about what they said though. Did I misunderstand or misrepresent something they said?

Going against someone is not the same as rebutting, the quality of the argument counts.

Because it’s easy to respond to one-off sentences. It’s harder to respond to the substantial argument they make.

What substantial argument?