I am fascinated by typography and page design and enjoy reading about it, but I have to admit I don't understand how this level of pedantry is able to survive.
The amount of documentation and attention to detail spent on typefaces and when to use them is often off the charts compared to the time spent on stuff like keeping the website running, documenting the API or even the basic functionality of the app.
It's like if someone grows oak trees for a century and slices veneer from it with a handcrafted blade and soaks it in coconut oil for a year before slapping it on a IKEA pulp honeycomb. :)
Typographic documentation is for designers generally, but there is a world where this can actually help everyone. Designers should make consistent designs. By doing this Developers can create functional designs systems that have sane default behaviors. Once you can get to that point, the system serves to reduce the load from the dev, not increase.
I have created a tailwind-based design system interpretation like this in the education space at a rather large scale. Our designs and our tailwind-config comes from the same spec.
Doing this removes the engineer from thought by reducing options and possibilities. It also serves as check and balance. Paddings, font-weights, all of it are consistent. Designs that deviate from line-height, padding, weights, colors, etc are incorrect mocks and our configured values will make it obvious to the dev. Code that deviates from the spec is incorrect. This requires a good communication flow between Eng and UX but actually works in practice.
In a functioning system, it is a weight off your shoulders as you end up knowing the defaults just by looking at something.
Might I also remind you, the point of the entire backend of an app is to serve the front end. An app with amazing backend practices but fails at matching designs or specs is just a failure and is noticeable by customers.
Good points which I generally agree with, but I still think it's common to see a remarkable level of time and effort spent on typography compared to even other parts of the frontend. Not always, but surprisingly often.
Many companies have these style guides around typography. Beautiful, thoughtful, very well made things for sure, yet when some backend dev makes a typo so the custom font drops to arial or whatever, it can be days before someone notices and the ones who notice are the font nerds from marketing. Nobody else seems to mind much.
Compare that with what happens if someone misunderstands the 20 year old SQL schema and writes the wrong magic string to a table. Instant crash, everybody notices immediately. Yet database schemas for internal applications tend not to be documented in Porsche-brochure-like sites like this Sweden Sans is.
How did the typography guys get a voice so strong? Note that I don't mind it, I like to see well made things in general, but it's puzzling. It's like there is a secret society of typography nerds that have spread to all major organisations.
>Might I also remind you, the point of the entire backend of an app is to serve the front end. An app with amazing backend practices but fails at matching designs or specs is just a failure and is noticeable by customers.
Just checked my notes and it turns out that frontend is just a temporary fashion-dictated skin over the actually important features of the backend! ;-)
> How did the typography guys get a voice so strong?
In my opinion the "typography guys" don't have an especially stronger "voice" than anyone else. They just do a job once, get paid some (relatively small) amount for it, and then move on to the next project. At the biggest these projects involve a few people working for a year or two. Their entire job is about communication, sales, and sweating small design details, so it's no wonder they do a relatively good job at those.
The amount of work those "20 year old SQL schemas" take, once you include every bit of other comparable detail across a whole organization, is (at least) thousands of times bigger and more complicated. Overall the "code guys" have much more resources spent, spend a lot more time, and everyone ultimately cares a lot more about their output. They are large teams of either long-term employees or long-term contractors, whose work never really ends.
In short: Code is a sprawling mess rather than a cutely packaged self-contained thing. Unsurprisingly it's harder to make sense of at a glance.
Graphics design manuals predate computers. They were first used in the real world, with real physical objects like signs, and perhaps the most famous is the London Underground, whose font is pretty much synonymous with British culture at this point.
News flash: technical worker thinks more resources should be diverted from non-technical matters to technical matters. Film at 11. ;-)
The people who design interfaces and the people who do branding and identity work are rarely the same people. I've done both (and was developer all over the stack for a decade,) but never at the same time. Branding and identity work is usually done by specialized agencies, and they're usually the ones who make decisions about the type stack.
What you and most other developers don't realize is that these things do actually matter— just not in ways that non-designers consciously pick up on. When looking at an individual website, most folks might not see much difference between a poorly kerned system font and a really expensive 'pro' font painstakingly hand kerned over months or years. However, when people are encountering a brand on a whole, having a uniform, polished look across media dramatically affects how it comes across, and that is hugely consequential. Think about how differently car dealership websites land than car manufacturer websites? And they're selling literally the same fucking product! A knowledgeable designer could write an essay on the difference in the two designs while a layperson would likely shrug and say "it looks... smoother I guess?"
It's really no different than performance for developers. Most people don't consciously notice the difference between a website that's really really streamlined and optimized and one that's just kind of okay... But the meh site will not inspire positive feelings about the experience. If your competitors do better, you likely won't be the one getting their business even if the customer didn't consciously reject your business because of it.
So I could be wrong about their point because they used SQL schema as their comparison but the commenter does question typography specifically so I think this is more "why is topography so focused on?" not "why is design so focused on?". At least that's the more interesting question to me.
For example this page. First thing you see is a hero image showing their font in use. It's a pretty important element that takes up the whole screen. It's blurry and pixelated. Not the worst I've seen but definitely gives me more car dealership not car manufacturer vibes. It's a 1.3MB png that looks just as good converted to an 80KB jpeg and imo even better as a 20KB avif. If it was instead a 1.3MB jpeg or avif starting from a high quality source that thing would look crisp and super car manufacturery.
There is also a section in the page where the text goes blurry because they've included a table as an image. Or I should rather say it's both blurry and an image because they could have just included a higher res image of the table. They have plenty of other images where it looks fine. Again something that gives me car dealership vibes. Actually I would say blurry text image table is specifically a dodgy second hand car dealership level of vibe.
Now you could say that the typography page isn't user or customer facing so its not that important but I see plenty of shitty blurry images on otherwise polished looking pages all over the internet, and also if they covered images in their design system like they do typography then it wouldn't matter. They'd just be in the habit of only using high quality images and have some process in place to deliver them in appropriate formats.
So while backend vs frontend or functionality vs polish are imo boring and played out webdev topics, I am super curious as to why they care enough about inspiring positive feelings through web design to make an entire custom font, have a page of guidelines on how to use said font, but dont have the same level of care for images. And why I see this contrast enough to consider it reasonably common in the industry.
> What you and most other developers don't realize is that[...]
Generalizations like this are just so bad. My biggest beef with design/"product" folk in the tech world is this thing that many of them do, where they justify their existence as a group of people and a business function by bad-mouthing developers.
Lol. You can't just qualify a generalization with "many" to make it a non-generalization.
Before getting into design, I was a full-time back end developer for 11 years and worked in dev organizations in ops/support rules for a decade before that. The job market over the past decade had coddled developers so much, and made them so fragile and arrogant. Even intimating that my professional opinion on design is more informed than a developer's opinion on design often yields a intellectual temper tantrum.
>News flash: technical worker thinks more resources should be diverted from non-technical matters to technical matters.
Good one, but that's not my point just to be clear! I think this kind of documentation tends to happen in organisations that already spend so much on enterprise licences that a team of designers doing "graphical profile" work for a year is almost a rounding error, and I don't mind that it happens at all. It's just weird that it happens to such an extent around typefaces, of all things.
Large corps pay dearly for Dell servers, kubernetes solutions from IBM, even the HR-systems are shoved to the cloud. Fortunes can be saved doing those things in-house, but the thing that happens in-house is - replacing Arial with something that looks almost like Arial.
Isn't that a litte weird? (Even if it is also wonderful) :)
> Yet database schemas for internal applications tend not to be documented in Porsche-brochure-like sites like this Sweden Sans is. How did the typography guys get a voice so strong?
The frontend design team naturally puts more effort into the clarity and visual design of their design documents than the backend engineers do. This shouldn't be surprising.
Companies value their branding because it's the public face of a company. It's very visible, and if not everywhere, then certainly in a lot of places. And there are a lot of people across any large organization who might wind up having to put together printed materials that include branding elements: it can range from an assistant ordering business cards for a new hire, to a random staffer wanting to put an ad in a local high school musical's program booklet, to the team working on the organization's website.
Brand guidelines tend to seem expansive because they have to break things down in a way that's very easy for all sorts of people to adopt with minimal hassle. From what I've seen, the moment that process gets anywhere within a thousand miles of difficult, people will say "forget it" and do what they want.
Despite all that, branding doesn't really require much in the way of ongoing resource commitments from an organization. They get put together when the brand is updated, and more often than not, the entire process is often outsourced to agencies. Either way, once it's done, it's done for a while.
It's also often publicly available. You can find brand guides for all sorts of companies and organizations available online. Technical documentation is almost always internal, unless we're talking about stuff that's been open-sourced, API documentation, etc. It's also ongoing and is in constant need of updating as code gets updated. As a result, there's no need to pretty it up beyond whatever makes it accessible to your developers. The priority is on keeping it updated as best you can, within the limits of available resources. That doesn't always happen, of course.
Different audiences merit different approaches, and because one is more visible, it may give the false impression that it's of higher importance to an organization.
I don't think it's that puzzling. After designing the typeface, those same designers have time to sit down and write up a fancy brochure for it. Engineers on the other hand, have a long list of existing tickets, so the minute they fix the broken magic string, there's another fix to move on to and no time to write a fancy brochure about the SQL schema.
The irony, of course, is that codebases would be a lot better if developers did sit down at the end of a project and wrote high quality documentation for it. Even better if they did it while developing the codebase.
Also, this comment is especially ironic on HN where the top 10 comments on every Show HN submission will be nitpicking about the design of the website or the wording used, etc.
I find it easier to write the documentation first, mark it as "not implemented yet" and then do the code. Added benefit if people accidentally stumbles on the documentation and have suggestions before the code is written :-)
I agree with much of your comment, but take umbrage with:
> the point of the entire backend of an app is to serve the front end
It’s a phoney argument. Once can just as easily say “the whole point of a front end is to provide simple access to the backend, rather than doing it via APIs”.
The whole system is important.
Some backends have appalling frontends and are still popular. The opposite is also true.
I was kinda hoping that the OP would counter with that line and then I would agree and make exactly your point haha. My point was simply that the system is interdependent as opposed to the OP's take that the FE consistency doesn't matter.
I think what he’s trying to say is that to the user of the system, the front end is the system. To a non-engineer its just an app and nobody knows or cares what end goes where.
Do you have any good recommendations for designing the design system? I’m currently in a position where our designs don’t always “fit” the spec that in theory exists. I’d like to get us on tailwind but widths and paddings and margins at times have weird divisions (I tried getting a rem to fit the px from the design and 1.24444…was close enough. It’s 1.25 and I won’t be bothered to fix it)
> Our designs and our tailwind-config comes from the same spec.
Is this the design system you created, or is this something others can use (or both)? As someone who's avoided frontend work primarily because I find CSS tedious, having a system over top of it that speaks design language sounds interesting.
Admittedly, looking at Tailwind now, looks like it's worth just trying that to start with.
It is generally different roles of people working on design guides like this versus working on documenting an API or other "basic functionality". It's not necessarily a zero sum effort (and probably often is entirely not) to produce design guides and work on other technical requirements at the same time.
Also, design, including and sometimes especially typography, is accessibility and is often worth that sort of attention to detail for exactly that reason, keeping designs accessible to all users. Defining contrasts and visual hierarchy hugely influences how accessible something using a design might be.
One specific example I see is the callout in this particular example for using much less UPPERCASE text moving forward from whatever their previous design language was. This is something I know that I've fought designers I've worked with over as an accessibility problem they've missed. (It's also something that Microsoft went through a huge accidental blow up in very public with early "Metro" designs that they had to apologize for and then walk back in consequent "Fluent" designs.) In general people read word shapes more than individual letters, uppercase forms a lot of very similar looking "rectangles" and even for readers with no other obvious dyslexia uppercase words are the visual equivalent of "speed bumps" in a roadway. They slow reading, sometimes to a crawl, and generally just get in the way, for all readers. (For dyslexic readers I've known they sometimes are even more "walls" than simply "speed bumps" and text entirely in uppercase will completely upset them, if not make the content 100% inaccessible to them and they will nope out entirely.)
That's an important thing about typography that is easy to miss. I've seen so many designs use all uppercase text in places simply because it "looks nice" (those "all words create about the same sort of rectangular shape" that makes a dyslexic viewpoint absolutely hate seeing all uppercase text add a regularity and "cleanliness" to design shapes that some designers find they love; one person's massive accessibility bug is another's aesthetic feature).
I think that's an overly cynical take for the work type designers do.
Design in general is highly detail oriented. In interior design, there are philosophies about the proper arrangement of furniture (feng shui). In visual design the balance of colors is crucial, and there are complex theories about the best ways to match and offset colors. This is highly technical work that might seem overly pedantic to outsiders, but really has an established theory about how it impacts the viewer.
So is the case with type design. There are infinite combinations of shapes and sizes of symbols, and an entire science behind how humans interpret characters to form words and communicate ideas. Think about how much design went into just this paragraph you're reading. A bad type can be tiring to read, while a good one can make the words flow off the page/screen. As readers, we take this for granted, but a type designer needs to take all this into consideration.
Consider the work it takes to design a logotype, and how it sometime seems deceptively simple, when in reality it takes a keen eye to design a brand logo. Now extrapolate that to all letters of all alphabets that a modern type should support, and it's no wonder that great type designers deserve all the praise and recognition.
So, yes, all these documents are necessary, and explain the intent of the designer, or how the user feels the type helps with transmitting their message.
It is actually amazing how much effort is seemingly expended on things like this.
I think it's pretty simple:
- there are a lot of people out there who love obsessing over software
- they want to obsess over software
- so they invent a purpose for obsessing over software
I love it, I'm here for it, and I think we should give people money for obsessing over software.
Just because it's simple on the surface does not mean that there's a lot that goes into it, or that the details don't matter. I feel like what you've written is a little reductionist to the hard work people put into designing frameworks for communications like this, and how much it can help to give voice and unify messaging in intra- and inter-institution communication. How do you keep two government agencies on the same page wrt to design language? or is it ok that one agency likes to produce communications in comic sans while the other uses sans and the third uses helvetica?
It might also be that people who obsess about typography are more inclined to create pretty documents whenever they can. API authors and DB designers are maybe less interested in making pretty documents, which is why their (at the very least equally important work) is often described in a readme.txt meant to be read from the terminal in the typeface of the reader's choice.
I've met DBAs, when that role was more common, that obsessed over creating ERDs and other data digrams - posted them all over the walls. But that was because they wanted to do it and were sufficiently empowered. It clearly was related to their work, but most other engineers wouldn't really have cared if they existed or not.
This type of guideline can be extremely helpful in a number of ways. People at various levels and with various levels of training tend to love to be creative at the expense of huge brand campaigns, so the branding design team has to find ways to reign in those passions. Technical access is generally much more limited for such people than is access to de facto brand representation through graphical presentation.
If it's a differential comparison vs. tech then that differential should be treated as its own issue, not an issue of design guidelines deserving a label like pedantry just because something else isn't as well-planned or documented.
Well, this is is not guidelines for an app or a website. This is guidelines for how the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation, the Ministry of Culture, the Swedish Institute, Business Sweden and Visit Sweden and the different agencies they use, should use typography when representing Sweden abroad.
I don't think the type section is unusually large, but I worked at a company for two years that exclusively made design manuals, and the well made ones tend to look like this.
>> I am fascinated by typography and page design and enjoy reading about it
You should check out the Netflix series:
Abstract: The Art of Design
Episode: Jonathan Hoefler: Typeface Design
The guy has some of the most important typefaces. The episode does an amazing job detailing his career and how they develop new typefaces. His work is literally everywhere and its super fascinating some of the misconceptions about type.
From the website running and dev side, I'd argue time spent on typography and page design guidelines have super high ROI.
First, it's basically one shot: once you have a type face and yhe guideline, only small tweaks are needed down the line. Changing it willy nilly has too much impact that it's just not an option either way. So you better spend time having it right.
Then it will be referred to in millions of places. Every single site made by the Swedish government will have to look at this guideline and decide where to use Sweden sans and when to use Noto. For their own project it wil be a small decision, but in aggregate the better the guideline is the lesser time needs to be spent bikeshedding on which font to use and if Times New Roman is acceptable.
The amount of documentation and attention to detail spent on code layout and API design (example: whether array sizes should be signed to unsigned integers, whether to use (start, length) or (start, end) to specify ranges) is often off the charts, too, and those are things the users will never see.
As in those cases, the investment in these kinds of guidelines should be worth it because less time gets spent on such discussions later and consistency of products is improved.
Yes, would be nice if they had a regular A, and that one as stylistic alternate. Removing the bit on the A to turn it into a regular one takes only a few clicks on Fontforge or another font-editing software, and the license allows modification and redistribution ;) [https://github.com/HelsinkiTypeStudio/Finlandica/blob/master...].
The tail on the lower case "a" is even worse imho. Really hurts readability because it barely looks like an "a" any more - more like an upside down "e".
The # & and @ are horrible. The A and the G are strange, two characters with a grace in a sans font. But i and j have that too. However I is designed to look different from l, which is not the case in many fonts.
It really doesn't matter how much attention you spend on typeface and design if the way you greet visitors is with an obnoxious "are you sure you don't want our tracking cookies?" where I have to click two tiny checkboxes, followed by a user-hostile trick bold "accept all" button next to the faded "accepted selected" option.
If you really wanted to improve UX, one of those things is more worthy of attention.
That is such a silly take. GDPR doesn't force you to keep using unsafe tracking methods on your not-even-commercial website. GDPR doesn't require you try and trick me with the two "accept" buttons.
Collect metrics in a lawful way and GDPR doesn't hurt your UX.
In the early 16th century, Spanish explorer Vasco Núñez de Balboa crossed the Isthmus of Panama in 1513 and sighted the great "Southern Sea" which he named Mar del Sur (in Spanish). Afterwards, the ocean's current name was coined by Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan during the Spanish circumnavigation of the world in 1521, as he encountered favorable winds on reaching the ocean. He called it Mar Pacífico, which in Spanish, Portuguese and Italian means 'peaceful sea'.
"Southern sea" sounds reasonable from the viewpoint of early Nordic seafarers. Based on a quick glance of the map, all of the Atlantic is south of Sweden.
I think Public is pretty nice, honestly. It feels official while still looking friendly and modern. Sweden’s is cool, but I don’t see what it actually does better on a practical level.
sweden.se is fine; it's identity.sweden.se that's having some problems. This is a really limited site with a target audience that's normally in the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of developers. It's probably just running on a cheap server/VPS somewhere, which is fine almost all of the time.
Sorry, I know HN isn’t a support forum, but am I the only one who gets “Safari couldn’t establish a secure connection” to any of the archive.xx sites? It’s been happening for ages now.
In short if you use Cloudflare's 1.1.1.1 DNS then some archive.is domains won't load so you should perhaps use another DNS server.
Edit: Not because 1.1.1.1 is in the wrong it is just what the person behind archive.is recommends as he will not be changing his position and neither will Cloudflare so it's a bit of a stalemate.
It's the other way around. The site blocks Cloudflare for some political reasons that have been mentioned here before, but I can't remember what they were.
I thought it was because Cloudflare DNS doesn't pass on the full IP subnet of the requesting computer, which archive.is wants. archive.is says they need it for better CDN routing, CloudFlare says it's a privacy violation and there are enough CloudFlare PoPs to provide for CDN granularity just by going off the requesting server.
I think this is just for some site focussed at promoting Sweden's image to foreigners? I don't think I've ever seen this font in use in normal communications from the Swedish state, living here in Sweden.
I like the Swedish Tax Agency's design language, if it can be called that. I don't think they use this Sweden Sans, but I'm not sure what they do use.
> I think this is just for some site focussed at promoting Sweden's image to foreigners?
It’s run by the Swedish Institute.
> The Swedish Institute is a public agency that builds interest and trust in Sweden around the world. We work with Sweden promotion, cooperation in the Baltic Sea region and global development. […] SI’s operations are financed mainly through appropriations directly through the state budget. SI has approximately 470 million Swedish government funds in four areas: international cooperation, international assistance, education and university research and business.[1]
It's definitely interesting how countries have their own PR these days.
And it's working, if you think of a nordic country, chances are, Sweden is the first one that comes to mind.
Is it? Norway has been topping all the livability charts for at least the past decade so that's the one I've always considered "the best in the world." Then probably the Netherlands, if you stretch the definition of Nordic.
It's more that Sweden is the biggest/most populous, and has the most internationally-recognizable brands (IKEA, Volvo, H&M, Husqvarna, Absolut Vodka, Spotify, Klarna, etc)
Definitely different countries in my mind, just because of the accent when speaking English. Norwegians have a pleasant accent, but it gets harder to understand as it goes west. The Finns I have met are really hard to understand.
Someone on Sweden was saying the Police have to catch you on the day to prove you are the driver, but I think I will stick to the German autobahns, less moose on the loose.
It's called Sweden Sans, but it appears to have serifs on at least some of the letters like lowercase i and l. Am I misunderstanding what a serif is? Or am I understanding what sans means in this context?
There's a lot of wiggle room. Sometimes a font designer will even throw in a single serif because hey--this is also an emotive art. Or maybe for a specific reason due to the project spec.
When I used to teach typography in the 2000s, sometimes students would point this out. Or as an example of a beginner's lesson, they'd use a font without really examining it, and some detail about the font would catch them out later.
It's weird but most people pick fonts without really thinking about the font itself, or even reading its name, let alone examining it. They are thinking about their design, their thoughts & feelings, their message, their amazing design opportunity, or whatever.
Skilled designers need to be trained to think about whether they're basically hallucinating the purpose of the font, as a few seconds of inspection will often make the original purpose really obvious. To people who learn how this works, it becomes just that obvious why those slab serifs might be in there.
It isn't a strict category like that. It is more like an indicator of the general font lineage the designer considers it to be in.
But plenty of sans fonts have a handful of serifs, particularly on the mistakable chars like l. And especially if they're expected to be used in technical contexts or as an "everything all the time" font like this one.
The regular and bold versions probably qualify as slab serifs, but the “book” weight is a true sans. (Might be easiest to see if you just download the font and look at the OTF files.)
Yeah, it looks like there are some slab serifs in there. I guess you could generously say that serif and sans-serif are handles on either end of what is really a spectrum. It may be simpler to call it a sans-serif, because if you called it a serif, people would expect it to be more serify.
Nobody's selling this font. Cynicism in regards to corporations is a good thing but this is cynicism to the point of disconnecting from the actual underlying facts.
Not what I said. Do you think they got the font for free? They used tax payers money to hire probably a brand corp that created this font as a part of the brand.
That's one sale. Governments need design, too, and those designers deserve to be paid. Designers choosing to blur the line on sans vs serif doesn't make it a bad typeface, or some sort of corporate scam to make one sale.
None are to be found here. No more shenanigans than are found in nearly every monospaced typeface in existence that sinfully mixes the exact same slab serifs and sans on the same glyphs.
The typeface is not monospaced. It is a garbage sans serif clone with some stupid sans-letters like lower case i and l that looks just ridiculous. Sweden used to use Helvetica (or some typeface very close to that). They should revert to that.
A "sans serif clone"? That phrase is utterly meaningless. I also wasn't calling it monospaced, just pointing out that there's precedent for the choices made here. It's a fine typeface, not my cup of tea, not even close to what I think of when I think of Swiss typography, but regardless of your obnoxious and unfounded opinionated take on it, regardless of my feelings on it, it's still a fine typeface. You can't even communicate what you don't like about it, just rant about corporations for some also unintelligible reason.
The British government may be an omnishambles, but their websites are remarkably clear and readable, specially for an aging population with worsening eyesight.
The focus is very different though as the Swedish one is a brand guide for country marketing purposes while this is for developing government services.
Beauty in the eye of the beholder and all, but the Swedish work is largely quite pretty and readable where the Estonian guidelines are an excellent of what designers do when they can get away with it or the client is too compliant / eager to be different. (source: am designer)
The intro claims the character of the Estonia brand is "nordic, surprising, smart" but the Aino font in particular seems way too focused on being surprising at the expense of legibility, which certainly diminishes expression of the smart element.
I’m surprised that a country would choose/create a typeface with only four weights and no italics for their design system. I’d understand if it was primarily a display font, but it seems intended for body copy as well.
It may be well designed etc etc etc...but I actually found it a bit hard to read. Maybe the letter spacing is too wide? So it's fractionally too hard to distinguish spaces from intra-word spacing.
Also...look under "Type usage" - they are using an image of a table instead of a table? Good lord.
I love looking at new fonts but from the perspective of book readability, this one I feel has the letter spacing too close together, and possibly also too narrow letters.
I am Swedish and I've never heard of the Sweden Sans font before. The font doesn't look very "Swedish" to me and is completely different from the font used on road signage, for example. For running text the font doesn't work at all imo.
Road signage is actually a very specific and typographically demanding use case with its own whole world of constraints and consequences. It's everywhere so very mundane to us, but it's not surprising at all that a general-purpose font isn't usable for it.
I appreciate when governments make an effort to build proper style guidelines for their national brand.
I think the UK has done a great job with their government website and their digital platforms. So it's good to see more governments getting into it as well.
Yeah I know Sweden uses Ö but when two of their neighbors uses Ø it seems so ignorant. I get annoyed at and confused but can forgive fonts made in primarily English speaking people when they don't have a normal zero but I would have expected more from a fellow Scandinavian country.
This is an old thread, but I'm a little puzzled by developers wondering why the tools we use should not be well-specified. I work on backend systems that rely heavily on high-specialized RFCs for DNS and domain name registrars. If they weren't painstakingly detailed, we'd be toast. But a new executive (no longer with us) once told us to simplify our representation of top-level domains because she thought it was too complicated, as though we could ignore the RFCs.
Are we playing with an idea that has similar dangers here? Ask the opposite question: what would happen if typeface designers didn't go to all this detail? Would we just want to know that "Arial is the round-ish one and Times New Roman has little footsy things?"
Font selection is a big deal to brand identity and marketing. They like to have lots of choices. We even design our own fonts sometimes. How many developers have, as I have, changed fonts in our code editors, looking for the one that's "just right?"
For whatever reasons, the demand for distinct fonts is high, and if there are lots of fonts, they need to be completely specified, so that they can be created and rendered correctly.
> The name comes from the fact that calligraphy-inspired typefaces were first designed in Italy, to replace documents traditionally written in a handwriting style called chancery hand. Aldus Manutius and Ludovico Arrighi (both between the 15th and 16th centuries) were the main type designers involved in this process at the time.
> The first use in a complete volume was a 1501 edition of Virgil dedicated to Italy [...]
> Italic type rapidly became very popular and was widely (and inaccurately) imitated. The Venetian Senate gave Aldus exclusive right to its use, a patent confirmed by three successive Popes, but it was widely counterfeited as early as 1502
There are quite a few grammatical errors on that page which is surprising, as much because of the sites subject as the fact that Swedes excel at English
I found a Guardian article [1] which quotes one of the people involved:
"We started to think about how it would work with different typefaces, then started mood boards with different fonts and pictures – especially of old Swedish signs we'd seen from the 1940s and 50s," said Jesper Robinell, Söderhavet’s head of design.
Beautiful
, clean and definately a complete body of work. However I cannot say I like it. It reminds me of the text governments use on informing rules and regulations, visa rules, duty free information and so on.
> However I cannot say I like it. It reminds me of the text governments use on informing rules and regulations, visa rules, duty free information and so on.
Well, that seems to be its primary use-case so I guess it works as intended, no?
Sorry, I have to disagree.
In fact, that was the first thing I saw and decided I "disapprove" this typeface.
Why? Because it looks too similar to norwegian Ø.
It's a very good idea to clearly distinguish zero 0 from capital O, but it should not look like Ø ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98 ) either, because there are many swedish businesses, websites, etc. operating in Norway. I know swedish alphabet uses Ö ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96 ), but still.
Makes a lot of sense to me if you look at the examples, and think of all the wacky things people will try to do with video because they think they know that branding means "stick the logo in the video somewhere".
It's adding consistency to the presentation and harmonizing with any accompanying non-motion graphic styles, as you might see in a cultural presentation environment with both packaging/signage and video or interactive elements for example.
I did and, in my opinion, they are far too generic to offer any semblance of value in terms of video composition. I'm no expert though, so maybe a videographer can chime in - but it feels slightly pedantic.
They're not telling you how to compose a video. They're giving you something to compare with as you compose your video. Too many other details will emerge, so it's a guideline and not a how-to.
And, later, those guidelines give a designer an institutionally-bought-in way to talk to someone without talking down to them. Refer to the guideline and discuss the guideline, not "I'm right, you're wrong." It's not meant as purely a technical spec as it may be interpreted by more tech-oriented mindsets IOW.
The amount of documentation and attention to detail spent on typefaces and when to use them is often off the charts compared to the time spent on stuff like keeping the website running, documenting the API or even the basic functionality of the app.
It's like if someone grows oak trees for a century and slices veneer from it with a handcrafted blade and soaks it in coconut oil for a year before slapping it on a IKEA pulp honeycomb. :)