Maybe /gd/ can give me an answer
Why is this so popular? IT'S SO FUCKING UGLY
>>263246
What do you not like about it?
>>263247
It's ugliness. Bembo looks better.
>>263246
>Why is this so popular? IT'S SO FUCKING UGLY
For two very simple reasons : (1) it is installed on every fucking OS and available right off the bat ; (2) most people don't give a shit about fonts, so they just stick to the standard ones.
It's the same kind of logic with Arial / Helvetica / Univers / Akzidenz / Neue Haas and the likes, for instance : try to explain to most people how fucked up the lowercase "a" is on Helvetica — most of them will just be like "meh".
On that matter, too many just stick to the "popular ones" like those ubiquitous Gotham and Proxima Nova — well, when it's not Helvetica.
>>263249
How about you try articulating yourself a little more and explaining exactly why it's ugly to you, as a designer you should be able to discuss why something looks bad/good and not just say "it's ugly"
>>263246
Because it's a well designed, highly legible, timeless font.
>>263285
What version of the font is that? Looks great
>>263307
It's not a commercial typeface. Bespoke logotype based on Times
>>263246
Every 'designer' who says that TNR is ugly has no idea what s/he is talking about. The main purpose of a font is to be legible. The easier it is to be read, the better. TNR ranks on top of legibility when it comes to printed fonts, as it has been demonstrated before. It is definitely a good choice for long reading, alongside Garamond.
Its a body text, its designed to do a job that it does correctly.
>>263328
Fine, but how come that (at the end of the day and in the design world) : (1) no one uses TNR or Garamond for professional work ; (2) some people are designing and others are willing to pay hundred of $ for fonts where TNR or Garamond will do that well?
I mean, either the whole design sector is fucked up or there's something wrong in your argument.
>>263371
Are you fucking retarded? Times is used everywhere. Times or Baskerville are the two most common fonts in book publishing/news/academic reports.
>first OP complains that TNR is too popular for a ugly font.
>Anon points out it actually works very well.
>Now OP complains that nobody actually uses it.
I guess it's not Helvetia enough for you is it OP.
>>263328
>serifs this sharp
>legible
>>263371
My argument is not wrong but you're judgment is. I was lazy and didn't want to Google it, but now that you insist—here's the complete answer:
In his book Cashvertising, Drew Eric Whitman cites a 1986 study of fonts (printed on paper) that found only 12 percent of participants effectively comprehended a paragraph set in sans-serif type versus 67 percent who were given a version set in serif typeface.
Those who read the sans-serif version said they had a tough time reading the text and "continually had to backtrack to regain comprehension."
In a test of three different fonts, two serifs (Garamond and Times New Roman) and one sans serif (Helvetica), he found 66 percent were able to comprehend Garamond; 31.5 percent Times New Roman, and 12.5 percent Helvetica (out of a total of 1,010,000 people surveyed).
The conclusion being that serif fonts are easier to read when it comes to fonts on paper. So, if you're sending out a sales letter or brochure in the mail, you probably want to use serif font (but, as mentioned in the first point, you could use sans-serif font for your headlines).
So please, OP, stop being an idiot for once, okay?
>>263378
Times and Times New Roman are your best options for economy, as they save space.
If that is not an issue, then use Palatino, which is the opposite.
Garamond is still the best "old" font, there exist variants of it.
Century Schoolbook (and other Century fonts) are popular with magazines.
>>263381
I don't give a shit how legible it is, it's so fucking ugly. You're not even helping your argument, because Garamond beat it out, and Garamond's ACTUALLY GOOD LOOKING, WHICH
!GET THIS!
IS THE POINT OF GRAPHIC DESIGN
>>263452
Kid, listen here. Good design is not 'pretty/good looking'. It should always follow one single rule: function over form. That's what the Bauhaus school has shown us. Their courses taught students to eliminate the ideas of the individual and instead focus on the productivity of design. Legal texts, scientific papers, a big body of text, all need to abide by the rules of efficiency so it doesn't consume many pages and/or ink. Garamond is not as economic as TNR. And when it comes to contracts and, you know, documents that have to be clear and precise, you will not use your meme font so that it ACSUALLY LOOKS GOOD!!!!!! These statements are in line with modernist simplicity of Bauhaus, Constructivism, Futurism and their claim that typography, like architecture, must be functional.
Modern interpretation of the message assumes objectivity and neutrality. Graphic design, processed through print technology, translates problems and experiences into a visual linear order. There is a single point of view. The designer believes that he/she should control what would be seen. This model of vision rejects interplay between a viewer and image and affirms that our internal makeup does not alter the impressions we receive.
The modern designer's objective is to control the viewer's visual component so that information is transmitted seamlessly. Besides all this, I'm sure that you are aware of the fact that 'looks good' is a vague way to describe something, as it is subjective, which means that it has no real ground to stand on.
Beatrice Ward once said that: To make a good choice of typography, for modernist designer is not a question of "How should it look?" but "What must it do?" Type well used is invisible as type. She denies artistic quality to the printed piece because in her opinion that would mean that its mission is the expression of the designer's self, and not fulfillment of its primary function – conveying the message.
>>263458
Continuing here.
Times was one of the original newspaper fonts, so billions of people have read that font in many different languages. Times New Roman gets its name from the Times of London, the British newspaper. It is a symmetrical font that’s been successful for a reason. Overuse doesn't make the font bad in general. And besides all this shitposting baiting thread, you've never explained yourself why Times New Roman is 'ugly'.
>>263458
>>263459
Spewing out something from a textbook is not going to help. Just fucking look at it. If the point is functionality, then wouldn't Garamond, which aside from looking better is apparently more readable, be used more often? How are Bembo/Garamond meme fonts?
It's probably been successful specifically because the Times used it, not because of any sort of functionality it provides. Looking at Times is like looking at a Brutalist building. It's so unbelivably unappealing.
>>263473
Look man, I answered your question
>Maybe /gd/ can give me an answer
>Why is this so popular?
I even gave you a proper answer by the textbook. I don't know what else do you want. It's your opinion of ugly and you seem very adamant about it. So be it. There's no need for you to push your taste upon others. That's not how design works. All the best to you.
Op stop being a dick, the anon above has answered your question in depth and with a level of courtesy you have failed to show him.
If you are so desperate that your view of 'this font is poop poop' then at least form it to a educated argument in an attempt to persuade him and the rest of us, as at them moment you're coming across as child who can't get their own way.
>>263452
>only good looking stuff is the point of graphic design
You have so much to learn. The point of graphic design is to communicate.
>>263251
>try to explain to most people how fucked up the lowercase "a" is on Helvetica
Haven't heard of it before, but now that I'm actually looking at it… It really IS weird. It's looks like it's mirrored, and the longer I look at it the more fucked up it looks. Is this what you're talking about?
