Tiresius font rant
- Started
- Last post
- 19 Responses
- vespa
Tiresius makes me angry.
How this minger of a font ever got sold to the nation I'll never understand.
It was "designed" by some researchers from the RNIB -- it was designed for the blind, even though it is mainly used by deaf and full sighted people. I appreciate it's very important to design for people with visual impairment, but that doesn't mean that you have to make it ugly does it? Also it retails for a HUGE figure, and that goes to the RNIB, so they weren't really impartial researchers. They were going to sell this font as being the saviour of telly typographic legibility even if it sucks.
It doesn't have any italics, even though these would be really useful for captioning.
I went to a presentation by the main "designer" a few years ago and he was arrogantly dismissive of typography as a profession, he seemed to think that fonts are designed by layout artists who just want to make stuff pretty. I got the distinct impression that he seemed to think that beauty and legibility are mutually exclusive.
Do I have my head up my arse for thinking that is a false assumption?
I won't profess to be a type designer, but I know some of you on here have enough knowledge to point me in the right direction.
Please post some fonts that are both beautiful AND legible at a distance. They don't have to be system fonts, I'd rather they weren't.
I realise that hinting etc for translation to a digital screen would need to be taken into consideration but for the moment I just need to see some fonts that are both aesthetically considered and legible.
Tiresius is depressing me, I hate it so much! The "j" and "J" omg!!!!!!
- typist0
pic?
- neue75_bold0
here you go Kim — http://screenfont.ca/fonts/today…
- you are not alone...neue75_bold
- I am here with you.dMullins
- sifting through your underware drawer...neue75_bold
- haha. aw thanks for posting that link neue. good to know i'm not going totally nutsvespa
- WAY TO BREAK THE LOVE CHAINdMullins
- shitehawke0
wow, a grand for 1 weight? Seem excessive.
How do you pronounce the name? I'm saying tyres-ass but I think Im wrong.
- Amicus0
It's not pretty... but it's much better than ITC Garamond or Rotis.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say, and I doubt that deaf people have any more problems reading than anybody else. (Not that they are claiming that on the site - http://www.tiresias.org).
The problem I have with this font is I doubt that any thought has been put into how people actually read, interpret and comprehend reading materials. Things like Bouma (the shape of a cluster of letters) leading and space around the text all have as much or more importance in reading and comprehension as the actual shape of the letters.
- That "J"!!!
oh the horrorvespa - shit you know what that's not the one I'm using. I'm using Tiresius Screenfont, it's way ugliervespa
- That is one disgusting capital J.dMullins
- The C (puke)Ambushstudio
- That "J"!!!
- vespa0
Tye-rees-ee-uhs
Please can you guys post some fonts that in your opinion are both beautiful and legible?
I'm not gonna rip into you for your choices or anything. I'm just depressed. I have tiresius induced depression.
- NotByHand0
* deletes new music career logo for Vespa all set in Tiresius.
- moth0
I love the way the copy crashes into the menu on http://www.tiresias.org.
- neue75_bold0
Simulating typical vision problems
The following examples show typefaces that meet the ADA requirements for use in signage systems. Each is shown as it would be seen by a viewer with no vision problem compared with an example of how it would be seen by a viewer experiencing a loss of light and focus.Bodoni Book [Figure 8] Thin stroke areas make this typeface a less than optimal choice for use with signage. Characters tend to break apart under low vision conditions.
Times Roman [Figure 9] The larger x-height and less thin stroke areas slightly improve readability. The somewhat condensed proportion results in closed counterforms under low vision conditions, such as in the “e” and “a” characters.
Garamond Semibold [Figure 10] The more consistent stroke width and wider proportion help readability. Small counterforms in the “e” and “a” tend to close under low vision conditions. The pronounced ascenders and descenders remain visible.
Century Schoolbook [Figure 11] The wider proportion helps the counterforms in the “e” and “a” to close less. The more consistent stroke weight and larger x-height improve readability in low vision conditions.
Glypha Roman [Figure 12] As in the previous example, the larger x-height, wider proportion, and consistent stroke weight all improve readability in low vision conditions. The less pronounced ascenders and descenders tend to fall away, though the slab serifs make each character slightly more distinct.
Futura Heavy [Figure 13] The simple, circular forms (such as in the single story “a” single stroke “u”) seem to hold up well under low vision conditions, as do the long ascenders and descenders. The short crossbar of the “t” does fall away, however.
Helvetica Bold [Figure 14] The larger x-height and wide proportions help readability under low vision conditions. The shorter ascenders and descenders do not hold up as well.
Univers 65 [Figure 15] The slightly smaller x-height results in counterforms that close a bit more than the previous example. The wider “r” and “t” hold up well, however.
Frutiger Bold [Figure 16] As this face was originally created for use in an airport, it is fitting that it functions well under low vision conditions. The fairly wide proportion, open counterforms and slightly longer ascenders and descenders all seem to improve readability.
Syntax Bold [Figure 17] The slightly condensed proportion results in closed counterforms under low vision conditions, though the more pronounced “t” and longer ascenders and descenders are positive attributes.
- shit, nevermind, you're talking about digital/screen fontsneue75_bold
- Frutiger! why didn't we use that? hmmmm??? who MAKES these decisions?vespa
- Frutiger is balls in my books...neue75_bold
- post something that isn't balls in your books! pleeeasevespa
- vespa0
in the screenfont version of tiresius, the descender heights of the "j" and the "y" are different!
all aboard the train to planet MING!!!!!!
- shitehawke0
I quite like Stainless but Im not sure how legible it is when used on screen.
http://www.fontbureau.com/fonts/…And Antenna
National
http://vllg.com/KLIM/National/mu…
http://www.fontbureau.com/fonts/…
- Amicus0
Vespa.... don't use the font! It's ugly, too expensive and doesn't work as claimed.
Most medium weight sans fonts with larger counters, reasonably large x heights and decent length ascenders and descenders will do the job. Add a little extra leading and loosen the tracking just a little and Bob's your uncle. And of course utilise a high contrast between figure and ground, keeping the background devoid of patterns.
- WE HAVE TO! IT'S BEEN BUILT INTO ALL DIGITAL SET TOP BOXES!! *cries*vespa
- agentfour0
Seems like a money making swindle...and a fugly one at that.
- moth0
As ma gran would say - a blind man would be pleased to see it.
- d_rek0
I have never even heard of this crap font. Surely this is some sort of mainstream jab at typography... right?
- moth0
I mean, call me old fashioned, but what are blind people doing watching TV anyway?
Aren't they why we have radio?
- Mau0
- johndiggity0
designed for road signage but is looks equally good and legible in text applications (used by at&t).
http://www.clearviewhwy.com/
- johndiggity0
there's also read regular, designed for dyslexic readers:
http://www.readregular.com/
- ESPtype0
it kinda looks like DIN