Am I the only one that wishes the article about the font "made for screens" went into more detail about what makes this specific font better for screens?
Hello, I’m Rasmus. I’d love to dig deeper into these subjects — the details into rasterization and realities of layout engines (or “shapers”) that are out there. Perhaps in another interview or article :–)
Verdana is a great example of a font designed for low-resolution screens[1].
What’s interesting is that Ikea chose to use Verdana for many of their print & in-store display material[2]. To me it looks a bit blocky and unfinished, which actually is a not a bad look for Ikea.
According to a font designer that was commissioned to design a custom font for IKEA, they decided to go with Verdana after all due to bad webfont support at the time. (They wanted to be consistent online and in-store.)
With that said, I share your opinion on Verdana and that can definitely have played a role in their decision.
I'd imagine they didn't because it was more about the timeline and process of creating it? They did touch on briefly about why he wanted to create it.
> We'd used Roboto as our main font, and we were running up against its limitations. It was originally built to work as both a display typeface for things like titles and text typeface for longer blocks of text like paragraphs. But it was difficult to read Roboto when it was small
I share the same sentiment. I’ve got a terrible eye for design and I don’t have the slightest idea about fonts. Articles like this remind me of my gaps and I’d love to pick up some knowledge.