see nerd blog
I’ve settled on the text typeface. It’s quicksand, designed by Andrew Paglinawan. It’s flowing and open, & thoroughly legible.
Finding the matching headline font is proving fun. Poirot–one works, but it’s too successful, it’s become the cliché 1930s typeface.
I’m trying alternative headline typefaces out. Some work, most don’t. I’m amused by miama: it’s over the top, outrageous, ever so slightly tasteless, completely outdated, stamps on its neighbours, yet is still perfectly legible. I can’t decide whether it’s too outrageous or whether it’s got enough of a hint of Samuel Pepys to get me past that. What ultimately puts me off is it’s too similar to those typefaces people use when they first discover the change font command.
I don’t really want to go for a staid, MOR, choice, but I fear I might have to. Tell you what, let’s describe what I seek:
- It must be legible on modern systems, with modern browsers. Sites such as Edge fonts and google should know what they’re doing, technically.
- I’d like my use of webfonts not to damage older browsers on older systems, so that text can still be read there, even if it’s not so pretty.
- The typeface must be fairly thin, to accompany quicksand.
- The typeface must be beautiful. To be honest, most typefaces fail for me here. Quicksand is beautiful.
- If not beautiful, then the typeface must not be ugly. Too many title typefaces are ugly. Actually, to be fair, the way I misuse them makes them appear ugly.
- The typeface must not remind me of something, must not carry baggage. Poirot–one says 1930s, miama says MY FIRST FONT, etc.. This site doesn’t have the weight to shake off such associations.
Well, it’s a couple of days later, and I seem to have settled on Impallari’s Raleway for the headline font. I would have gone for its sister font, Raleway Dots, but it doesn’t look so good in Windows 7 on cheap screens.
Thanks to the font designers and editors, and google, for making them available for free.