News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Twitter's new font, Chirp, is apparently giving some users headaches. Parent comment

Re:Twitter's new font, Chirp, is apparently giving some user... by dfxm12 on Thursday August 12, 2021 @11:12AM (#28157327)
Why not try, though? First and foremost, I think it's a good thing that designers are getting work. I also think huge "for fun" webapps are in a particularly advantageous place when it comes to pushing the boundaries of design, mostly because they have people on hand who can do it and who probably want to do it. Next, it's really a low risk preposition.

Maybe Office 365 needs to be conservative with fonts. Twitter can push boundaries, though. I wish they'd push boundaries more, ala Bertone or Memphis Group, but I guess the risks are larger the more you push the boundaries.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Twitter's new font, Chirp, is apparently giving some user... by pavlov on Thursday August 12, 2021 @01:09PM (#28158837)
> "Maybe Office 365 needs to be conservative with fonts. Twitter can push boundaries, though."

What's the difference between Office and Twitter here? Both are apps that should just get out of the way of the content.

Most software should just have native UI that follows the platform guidelines. Unfortunately software companies hire graphic designers who know nothing about interaction design, and generalist programmers who want to do one-size-fits-all UIs. And that's how you get unreadable fonts in slow Electron apps.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Twitter's new font, Chirp, is apparently giving some user... by browningstreet on Thursday August 12, 2021 @05:26PM (#28161718)
Why not try? Because the cognitive dissonance when people's eyes and brains run into a large variety web-based and app-based screen fonts. Web based font performance is still terrible. So.. because: the brain doesn't like it.

Different presentation fonts in web pages, desktops, etc. can start to have the experiential impact of (gui) skins, or non-standard dotfiles.

Please note the things I'm leaving out of this... print, books, static things, etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Twitter's new font, Chirp, is apparently giving some user... by turtlebits on Thursday August 12, 2021 @12:55PM (#28158674)
Twitter's chirp webfont is almost 100k. On optimized sites, that can easily be larger then all of the HTML/CSS combined.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Twitter's new font, Chirp, is apparently giving some user... by TheRealPomax on Thursday August 12, 2021 @03:07PM (#28160188)
But tens to even hundreds of times smaller than any single tweet that has an image in it, so not really a useful metric.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Twitter's new font, Chirp, is apparently giving some user... by turtlebits on Thursday August 12, 2021 @04:39PM (#28161139)
That attitude is why web pages have gotten so bloated.

https://twitter.com/Twitter is 1.6mb. (200k+ of fonts, 500k+ of JS)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Twitter's new font, Chirp, is apparently giving some user... by TheRealPomax on Thursday August 19, 2021 @12:13PM (#28235668)
And heaven forbid browser caches frequently used sites, which would make that complaint an equally meaningless metric.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Twitter's new font, Chirp, is apparently giving some user... by turtlebits on Thursday August 12, 2021 @05:37PM (#28161842)
Actually webbloatscore.com says 2,062 kB and 88 requests.
[ Parent | on HN ]