First look: new Ubuntu font boosts Linux typography

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/07/first-look-new-ubuntu-font-boosts-linux-typography.ars

by rayboyd • 16 years ago

95 49 16 years ago

arstechnica.com

drguildo• 16 years ago

closed beta

Wait, what?

pyre• 16 years ago

From http://design.canonical.com/2010/07/the-ubuntu-font/:

  > Today all Ubuntu Members will have access to a
  > private PPA so that they can use, test and enjoy
  > the font.
  > 
  > The font is scheduled for completion 8th August
  > and this is when we aim to open the beta to everyone.

So the they are opening usage to a select group prior to the actual completion of the font's design.

rdtsc2• 16 years ago

I think that makes sense. Perhaps the foundry asked for it. They wouldn't want to any negative comments because the work is not finished yet.

whalesalad• 16 years ago

Can someone provide a download to the actual file? I'd love to play around with it, without jumping through hoops on launchpad with openid and such. Anyone have it or have easy access to it?

rdtsc2• 16 years ago

The article said it is a closed beta. Perhaps, if you install 10.10 eventually you'll get the new fonts in the repo.

jallmann• 16 years ago

That really is quite pleasing to look at. And as the article mentions, it matches up against the type in the Ubuntu logo nicely. Take note of the 'u', the 'n' and the 'a'.

jp_sc• 16 years ago

"Un s a ve d D o cu m e n t 1 - g e d it"... Maybe the kerning is the next thing to improve

noahlt• 16 years ago

The problem with Linux typography isn't a lack of fonts, it's bad rendering. I can buy a font from Adobe. I can't buy a better font renderer for Linux.

dtf• 16 years ago

When you say "bad rendering", do you mean glyph rendering (FreeType) or the layout stack?

jdub• 16 years ago

... plus, the incredibly good Android "Droid" typeface is available under an open license and looks fantastic on mobile and desktop screens.

So the new Ubuntu font certainly gives them/us something unique, but I'm not yet convinced that it gives them/us greater quality (I'm an Ubuntu member, and have tried this early release).

Plus, you can install Droid on Ubuntu today: ttf-droid.

naner4• 16 years ago

The funny part is that all the pieces (FreeType, HarfBuzz, Pango) are really well done, just FreeType isn't tweaked properly. :/

sandGorgon• 16 years ago

+1 This (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1239067) is a question that I posed to Ubuntu brainstorm. The font hinting and rendering patents (held by Apple/Microsoft) are supposedly expired, therefore opening up the way for Freetype to jump ahead by leaps and bounds.

Maybe a little money could be spent on patent due diligence.

audidude2• 16 years ago

Note the window title uses the bold font which it says is unfinished.

Groxx3• 16 years ago

Are you sure?

> The bold weight is still being designed and isn't available yet. [ars]

and

> For now, only the regular is available for testing, bold comes next. [ http://design.canonical.com/2010/07/the-ubuntu-font/ ]

Sounds like it might be another font entirely, especially as the whole font is still in beta, but it mentions bold separately that way. But I could be wrong.

Groxx3• 16 years ago

Oh wow, that's bad o_O The text in the main field, which I assume is their font, is better... but IMO still needs a bit of work, especially around "d"s and "i"s.

hammerdr• 16 years ago

Anyone know if Dalton Maag is making a serif font, as well? Despite the long lived computer love affair with sans, serif is becoming more important with higher resolution screens (think Retina Display).

aaronbrethorst2• 16 years ago

Great to see! Along the same lines, can anyone shed any light on why Gnome's settings for padding around UI elements is set to such a high value? (compare to OS X, which has very minimal padding around most UI elements).

windsurfer• 16 years ago

The padding is there to make the interface cleaner. It forces developers to be more concise with their components as well as making navigation easier for users.

Keep in mind Gnome is meant to be easy to use, not easy on the screen real-estate. If you want a minimalist UI, there are a million alternatives in linux land

aaronbrethorst2• 16 years ago

That's a laudable goal, but it seems like it just wastes space. I don't want minimalism, I want greatness.

felxh• 16 years ago

I always wondered about that myself. How exactly do huge UI elements make an UI cleaner and easier to use (we are not talking about touch screens or accessibility features here)? I would say that proper spacing and layout/grouping are much more important for designing a clean UI.

man1sh2• 16 years ago

No, seriously. The padding is just too much, to the level that it wastes space.I know too much clutter is bad, but that doesn't mean GNOME people have to increase the padding to this extent.

Can we have a middle ground for padding? Nor too less, nor too much.

burriko• 16 years ago

This has bothered me for years. Everything just looks so chunky and inelegant. The difference really hits home if you compare Rhythmbox and iTunes (OS X version, not Windows) side by side. Rhythmbox just appears to be wasting so much space.

Arguing that it makes the interface cleaner might seem correct in theory, but in practice it really doesn't seem to hold true. Especially when you compare to OS X, which has an extremely clean interface without any over padding of elements.

tvon• 16 years ago

I can't find the specific justifications but I believe it's all described in the GNOME HIG: http://library.gnome.org/devel/hig-book/

Not to say it's necessarily correct, but if you really want to dig into their reasoning, that's where it is.

volomike• 16 years ago

The font looks too Star-Trekkie, somewhat Romulan in fact. Nice for a logo, but sucks to see that on all the windows.

Remember Nautilus? There was a particular version of Ubuntu that shipped where Nautilus folder doubleclicks kept opening new windows rather than using the same window. DID NOT WANT. And unfortunately Ubuntu shipped with that. The community pushed it back, and so in the next release they knocked that off. So let's hope they don't ship this font as the standard default font.

I appreciate them trying to improve the interface, but forcing everyone from right closing windows to left was too drastic in 10.04 LTS. I quickly reverted back to Clearlooks.

snitko2• 16 years ago

When someone talks about Linux problems with fonts rendering now, I get really confused. I worked on Win/Mac/Linux (currently using Macbook and Ubuntu Desktop) and I have to say Linux has the best font rendering. Compare this:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/113891/pics/font_rendering_linux.png http://dl.dropbox.com/u/113891/pics/font_rendering_macosx.pn...

snitko2• 16 years ago

With this new font, things look even more amazing. Great font.

megaman821• 16 years ago

It is such a small thing, but the font rendering quality has always prevented me from enjoying Linux. I read so much while on the computer the horrible rendering and kerning just nag at me until I don't feel like reading anything else until I switch OS's.

wolverian2• 16 years ago

Note that font rendering differs massively between distributions. I prefer Ubuntu's softer (OS X -style) look best. Others might prefer Fedora's crisp (Windows-style) rendering.

djacobs2• 16 years ago

Is it the rendering or the font choice that you don't like? I, for one, install Lucida Grande as my system font and Monaco or Menlo as my monotype font and think the design looks much fresher.

Sure, the rendering isn't 100% perfect, but with sub-pixel smoothing, I really don't mind it.

tptacek3• 16 years ago

The kerning on the 'i' is off (look at the 'B' 'i' pair), the upper 'I' is indistinct, the ascender on the lower 'l' is grotesquely higher than the cap height (look at 'P' 'l'), and the lower 't' and 's' look like the bastard children of Eurostile. I think it's a mess.

There's a reason everyone tweaks Bitstream Vera; it works. Novelty sans fonts aren't the reason Linux typography sucks.

djacobs2• 16 years ago

I'm okay with the high lowercase L, but I am with ya re: the lowercase T and S, they ain't so great.

Is it just me, or did the lowercase T come straight from the Twitter logo?

vrode• 16 years ago

It's beautiful. Despite the flaws, it warms my heart to see that someone is actually taking interface fonts seriously on Linux. I share the controversial belief that games and software are far too obvious to be the reason why Windows got ahead. I think it is the attention to everyday details like fonts, that made Windows more popular.

First look: new Ubuntu font boosts Linux typography

Related Stories