The article is really the antithesis of a good critique.
The comparison to Helvetica and Garamond misses the point of Comic Sans, which is to be a casual, friendly and playful (as opposed to professional, austere, serious, business-like) font that looks more handwritten than typographed (like the handwritten captions in pulp comics of yore).
Even the kerning and height issues they point can be explained for that. Perfect kerning and proportions would ruin the illusion of it being handwritten and childlike.
As to why all the hate, it's easy: middle class people with any "artistic" or "creative" inspirations (and I use the term loosely) will jump at the first chance to feel more sophisticated than the great unwashed masses. And designers are the very epitome of that crowd [1].
And most will just jump on any bandwagon related to such a cause (notice the hundreds of anti-Comic Sans blog posts, articles, even t-shirts), without thinking the issue thoroughly and trying to understand neither the original intent nor how and why people actually use the font in practice (which is even more important).
The real question to ask is not why designers and hipsters "hate" it, but why the huge "unwanted masses" adopted it with such eagerness. But that would imply that the average designer also has something to learn from the people, instead of preaching his dictums (which most of the time are not tied to any science or real world observations at all) of "what should work" and what "they should like" to them.
[1] The same people that, in their web incarnation, blathered on and on about "semantic markup", missing the point of both "semantic" -- a word that they repeated as parrots from one another after they learned it from a few misguided trend-setters -- and "markup", which is not supposed to be where you convey semantics). This, now mostly subdued trend, kept the web 5 to 10 years behind -- thank god for SPAs, flex and grid layouts and the like.
1) Imagine you are writing something that is purposefully not professional or serious looking.
2) Open your text editor and paste/type one headline and some text
3) Format with a font that does not look serious or professional
See the problem? There is simply no alternative to Comic Sans, that's why it's the first choice whenever someone is looking for a font other than the classics, in fact Comic Sans is already a classic...
You're right, Comic Sans hatred is partially motivated by a designer's desire to advertise their refined taste. And Comic Sans, reeking of diapers and toddler saliva, is also offensive to a freshly urban-outfitted adult.
But the masses also use Times Roman and Helvetica, a lot, which are okay choices, and you don't see hipster movements against them. The above critique is totally solid on the reasons why Comic Sans does have real flaws, even given its design goals.
When desktop publishing met a mass audience, none of the other fonts met these users' needs. Comic Sans has open counters, which is good for legibility. And many home users want signage or communication with a more informal feel.
To their credit, Microsoft figured out that their users needed these things and polished up something that they were already working on. It wasn't a perfect job, but I'm not sure what other options they had used at the time. At the time, I think Adobe and MS were still in a format war, and few fonts could meet Microsoft's demanding requirements for on-screen legibility with low-end computers.
> Even the kerning and height issues they point can be explained for that. Perfect kerning and proportions would ruin the illusion of it being handwritten and childlike.
Added to this, it is often the only font on a computer that has an 'open 4' which is why a grade 2 teacher I know uses and prefers it for worksheets, since it's much easier for kids to replicate and distinguish an open 4 from a hand-printed 9.
To be fair the bandwagon started rolling for good-ish reason. For ages (probably still) Windows lacked any decent headline font, which meant a lot of shit got put into comic sans that shouldn't have. There used to be a blog full of funeral announcements and pink-slips printed in comic sans. You take a crap ____ (font in this case, but word/joke/phrase anything) and over use it and over use it in wildly inappropriate ways and it starts engendering hate real quick.
As to why all the hate, it's easy: middle class people with any "artistic" or "creative" inspirations (and I use the term loosely) will jump at the first chance to feel more sophisticated than the great unwashed masses.
This statement is itself a sweeping, unsupported generalization, a stereotype-based bit of elitist snobbery in exactly the fashion that it itself describes. Perfectly self-reflexive. Could it possibly be an accident?
> As to why all the hate, it's easy: middle class people with any "artistic" or "creative" inspirations (and I use the term loosely) will jump at the first chance to feel more sophisticated than the great unwashed masses. And designers are the very epitome of that crowd.
Blaming the overwrought hatred of Comic Sans entirely on the sneering bourgeoisie is just as silly as blaming it on the great unwashed masses. (Which this article did not do.)
We shipped a game called The Sims that used Comic Sans all throughout, that sold pretty well in spite of the font. In case you can't stand to read Comic Sans with your eyes, I also made an external screen scraping utility called Simplifier that reads Comic Sans text off the screen, and catalogs and recites the product descriptions with a speech synthesizer. [1]
I really don't mind comic sans. I notice it, because it's cool to hate it and it gets a lot of attention. But really I don't find it terrible.
Edit: kerning, small text readability, etc are all stretching it a bit. The main reasons are -- overuse and unprofessional look. I wouldn't use it in a resume, but otherwise I don't hate or even mind it.
No, no, the cool thing to do now is to defend it. You claim that critics just don't understand its purpose, even if they mention it multiple times and are only criticising misuse. Then you use it ironically in your professional presentations to show that you are above the hoi polloi, both of today and of 15 years ago.
You know what I also hate? Popovers on websites asking for my email address. I get it, you read somewhere that you‘re supposed to build an email list to grow your audience. Just let me read in peace.
One of my CS professors had us writing papers, and we got extra points if it was in comic sans. I had to specifically install a ms fonts package for it. Ever since I've liked it, but don't actually use it. I think the whole thing surrounding comic sans is incredibly strange and I'm pretty sure I'm missing some context or something.
It's the same as with Java, PHP, ketchup, strip malls, pop music, professional wrestling, etc. which are usually criticized with minimal mental effort. The opinion is used as a signal that you're not "one of them," that is, a commoner, though to a thinking person they establish you as exactly that, somebody who is incapable of nuanced thinking.
Designer Craig Rozynski has created a new version of Comic Sans, which fixes many (most?) of the typographical problems pointed out in this article: http://comicneue.com/
Eh, the bold is alright but I think the regular version loses one of Comic Sans' most important qualities: it doesn't develop weird/anemic proportions when used at large sizes or in all caps.
Hmmm, I think the premise is way off-base here. People don't even hate Comic Sans... they hate how often it's used inappropriately.
The article tries to construct this huge overwrought analysis of the font itself, but the font is fine. It's the tone-deaf way that people use Comic Sans that causes ridicule.
In my opinion, the real reason Comic Sans is bad has nothing to do with the actual design of Comic Sans. The simple fact is that it gets annoying to read significant amounts of text if they are in fonts if they deviate too far from the normal standards. Fonts that try to emulate handwritten cursive, for example, are even more annoying.
It's just that of the fonts that most people have pre-installed, Comic Sans may be unique in terms of being in the danger zone where it's almost normal enough that people try to use it for actual documents, but different enough that people forced to read those documents get irritated.
This article is more along the lines of "Arial is bad," which may be true in terms of font design, but isn't the sort of thing normal people are going to go around wearing t-shirts about.
Comic Sans is a terrible font, even when used for its intended purpose. It has a really off-kilter awkwardness that doesn't evoke any sense of youth or playfulness.
The perfect argument against Comic Sans is Chalkboard [1], a font created by Apple to have the same look but fixes everything wrong with it. Vincent Connare, the creator of Comic Sans, uses it as an example of how great Comic Sans is, saying "if Comic Sans is bad why make something similar." [2] But they made something similar because it was bad and needed fixing. Chalkboard shows that the concept of a casual handwriting/comic font is valid, it's just that Comic Sans blew the execution.
At least Helvetica has a whole movie about it! [1]
"It's hard to evaluate it. It's like being asked what you think about off-white paint. It's just there. It's hard to get your head around something that's that big."
"And most people who use Helvetica use it because it's ubiquitious. It's like going to McDonalds instead of thinking about food. Because it's there. It's on every street corner. So let's eat crap, because it's on the corner."
sorry in advance for posting a contrary opinion, but this runs contrary to "both sides" of what I hear in the debate and I feel like it's worth sharing, I can't be the only one...:
if you want to make a "warning" sign, like "Caution: electrical hazard", my claim is that it will get noticed MORE and serve as a better warning if you display it in Comic Sans. Reason, it looks like an actual person went to the trouble to warn you, as opposed to some overly cautious liability dodging corporate (or OSHA or insurance company) warning.
And I'm not saying it's perfect or doesn't have a lot of other fails, but it's my goto font for signage because it's ubiquitous and it gets the message across. I'm mystified by people who only wish to be warned in ... in what, serif or sans, I don't even know?
It's my goto font when typesetting speech bubbles for my dank memes. Or when I want to give another designer an aneurism.
People just need to chill out. The more people use Comic Sans, the better a pro-designers work looks against the "corporate-but-also-fun powerpoint" background radiation.
I've never before seen someone making the mistake of saying 'Legos' go so far as to capitalise it and append a registered trademark icon. LEGO is a trademark; 'LEGOS' is not.
Is it just me or is Comic Sans such an easy target that it seems silly to be elitist about it? It's like if a bunch of film critics kept bringing up how bad Batman and Robin was.
[+] [-] coldtea|10 years ago|reply
The comparison to Helvetica and Garamond misses the point of Comic Sans, which is to be a casual, friendly and playful (as opposed to professional, austere, serious, business-like) font that looks more handwritten than typographed (like the handwritten captions in pulp comics of yore).
Even the kerning and height issues they point can be explained for that. Perfect kerning and proportions would ruin the illusion of it being handwritten and childlike.
As to why all the hate, it's easy: middle class people with any "artistic" or "creative" inspirations (and I use the term loosely) will jump at the first chance to feel more sophisticated than the great unwashed masses. And designers are the very epitome of that crowd [1].
And most will just jump on any bandwagon related to such a cause (notice the hundreds of anti-Comic Sans blog posts, articles, even t-shirts), without thinking the issue thoroughly and trying to understand neither the original intent nor how and why people actually use the font in practice (which is even more important).
The real question to ask is not why designers and hipsters "hate" it, but why the huge "unwanted masses" adopted it with such eagerness. But that would imply that the average designer also has something to learn from the people, instead of preaching his dictums (which most of the time are not tied to any science or real world observations at all) of "what should work" and what "they should like" to them.
[1] The same people that, in their web incarnation, blathered on and on about "semantic markup", missing the point of both "semantic" -- a word that they repeated as parrots from one another after they learned it from a few misguided trend-setters -- and "markup", which is not supposed to be where you convey semantics). This, now mostly subdued trend, kept the web 5 to 10 years behind -- thank god for SPAs, flex and grid layouts and the like.
[+] [-] glaberficken|10 years ago|reply
Regarding why Comic Sans is so popular
Try a simple exercise if you are on Windows:
1) Imagine you are writing something that is purposefully not professional or serious looking.
2) Open your text editor and paste/type one headline and some text
3) Format with a font that does not look serious or professional
See the problem? There is simply no alternative to Comic Sans, that's why it's the first choice whenever someone is looking for a font other than the classics, in fact Comic Sans is already a classic...
[+] [-] neilk|10 years ago|reply
But the masses also use Times Roman and Helvetica, a lot, which are okay choices, and you don't see hipster movements against them. The above critique is totally solid on the reasons why Comic Sans does have real flaws, even given its design goals.
When desktop publishing met a mass audience, none of the other fonts met these users' needs. Comic Sans has open counters, which is good for legibility. And many home users want signage or communication with a more informal feel.
To their credit, Microsoft figured out that their users needed these things and polished up something that they were already working on. It wasn't a perfect job, but I'm not sure what other options they had used at the time. At the time, I think Adobe and MS were still in a format war, and few fonts could meet Microsoft's demanding requirements for on-screen legibility with low-end computers.
[+] [-] krrrh|10 years ago|reply
Added to this, it is often the only font on a computer that has an 'open 4' which is why a grade 2 teacher I know uses and prefers it for worksheets, since it's much easier for kids to replicate and distinguish an open 4 from a hand-printed 9.
[+] [-] Avshalom|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Lagged2Death|10 years ago|reply
This statement is itself a sweeping, unsupported generalization, a stereotype-based bit of elitist snobbery in exactly the fashion that it itself describes. Perfectly self-reflexive. Could it possibly be an accident?
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] PhasmaFelis|10 years ago|reply
Blaming the overwrought hatred of Comic Sans entirely on the sneering bourgeoisie is just as silly as blaming it on the great unwashed masses. (Which this article did not do.)
[+] [-] fibbery|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DonHopkins|10 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imu1v3GecB8&feature=youtu.be...
[+] [-] daveguy|10 years ago|reply
Edit: kerning, small text readability, etc are all stretching it a bit. The main reasons are -- overuse and unprofessional look. I wouldn't use it in a resume, but otherwise I don't hate or even mind it.
[+] [-] rer0tsaz|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sethammons|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cenk|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theandrewbailey|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ueland|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Absentinsomniac|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] superswordfish|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crb|10 years ago|reply
There's a good interview with Rozynski on the subject: http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2014/april/the-neue-...
[+] [-] Avshalom|10 years ago|reply
and personally I think the 'e' is too aggressive.
[+] [-] larrymcp|10 years ago|reply
The article tries to construct this huge overwrought analysis of the font itself, but the font is fine. It's the tone-deaf way that people use Comic Sans that causes ridicule.
[+] [-] 7Z7|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] resoluteteeth|10 years ago|reply
It's just that of the fonts that most people have pre-installed, Comic Sans may be unique in terms of being in the danger zone where it's almost normal enough that people try to use it for actual documents, but different enough that people forced to read those documents get irritated.
This article is more along the lines of "Arial is bad," which may be true in terms of font design, but isn't the sort of thing normal people are going to go around wearing t-shirts about.
[+] [-] codingdave|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JabavuAdams|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] polpo|10 years ago|reply
The perfect argument against Comic Sans is Chalkboard [1], a font created by Apple to have the same look but fixes everything wrong with it. Vincent Connare, the creator of Comic Sans, uses it as an example of how great Comic Sans is, saying "if Comic Sans is bad why make something similar." [2] But they made something similar because it was bad and needed fixing. Chalkboard shows that the concept of a casual handwriting/comic font is valid, it's just that Comic Sans blew the execution.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalkboard_(typeface) [2] http://www.connare.com/whycomic.htm
[+] [-] Spooky23|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DonHopkins|10 years ago|reply
"It's hard to evaluate it. It's like being asked what you think about off-white paint. It's just there. It's hard to get your head around something that's that big."
"And most people who use Helvetica use it because it's ubiquitious. It's like going to McDonalds instead of thinking about food. Because it's there. It's on every street corner. So let's eat crap, because it's on the corner."
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JkpYgjbYRg
[+] [-] brashrat|10 years ago|reply
if you want to make a "warning" sign, like "Caution: electrical hazard", my claim is that it will get noticed MORE and serve as a better warning if you display it in Comic Sans. Reason, it looks like an actual person went to the trouble to warn you, as opposed to some overly cautious liability dodging corporate (or OSHA or insurance company) warning.
And I'm not saying it's perfect or doesn't have a lot of other fails, but it's my goto font for signage because it's ubiquitous and it gets the message across. I'm mystified by people who only wish to be warned in ... in what, serif or sans, I don't even know?
[+] [-] khaled|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomelders|10 years ago|reply
People just need to chill out. The more people use Comic Sans, the better a pro-designers work looks against the "corporate-but-also-fun powerpoint" background radiation.
[+] [-] OJFord|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kristiandupont|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CM30|10 years ago|reply
But yeah, it's an easy target.
[+] [-] jordigh|10 years ago|reply
https://lobste.rs/s/0dxurz/new_hat_request_system/comments/p...
[+] [-] phpguys|10 years ago|reply
Just because this designer thinks that Comic Sans sucks, doesn't mean it didn't have a place all those years ago.
[+] [-] PhasmaFelis|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cafard|10 years ago|reply