I never really think too deeply about fonts. It’s an interesting enough topic, but there are only so many hours in the day and I have to draw the line somewhere.
Whenever I do think about fonts, type design strikes me as an oddly archaic or niche job. I know there are type designers out there, creating new fonts I write this… but call me a heretic; I think most if not all our everyday font needs are well and truly satisfied with what we have.
When I set up this blog I played around a bit with the font selections; I tried a few variants on the classics, I tried a few playful fonts, and I tried a few dreadful ones. But in the end, I always return to close-to-classic because it just works best.
It is very easy to get carried away with fonts. There is a siren-song about font selection that tempts me with infinite possibilities. It tries to make me forget about anything but fonts. It lures me into fonts-for-fonts sake thinking. And that’d be fine if the sole purpose of this blog were to showcase its design.
I don’t want my font choices to be a distraction from the writing, because… then what’s the point?
Helvetica (and Arial and Calibri) may feel “boring”, but that may not be a bad thing. The reason it might feel boring is because it’s everywhere. And it’s everywhere, because it works. Why wouldn’t you want to pick a font that works? Ignore the knee-jerk reaction, and stick with a nice boring classic unless you can articulate why you need something else.
Frutiger (and Corbel) looks familiar but hard to place. It’s a font that gets used on airport signs (and I believe some road signs) specifically because it is very easy to read at a glance for short fragments. Ideal for direction signs. This might also make it a perfect font for headings perhaps?
Garamond (and maybe Constantia) look a little old-fashioned, but nice regular and rounded. There is a lot of debate about whether serif or sans-serif is better for readability of body text, but since new studies continue to find for alternating sides in this debate it probably has more to do with familiarity with the font than whether it has little dangly bits.
Times (and Times New Roman and Cambria) are a more modern choice for serif-ed fonts. I personally would look at the serif/sans-serif as more of an issue for visual contrast than whether one is more legible than the other.
Bodoni feels a bit squished to me. Technically I believe this is closer to the definition of a “modern” font, but I could be mistaken. My mind associates it with headings in magazines that have a very high opinions of themselves and their design-cred. This is probably a bad sign. I’m unlikely to every use this myself.
If design and type interests you, I really recommend reading “The Non-Designer’s Design Book” by Robin Williams (no, not the actor). It is a very lucid and simple introduction to the rules of design.
And I’ll leave you with some Commandments…