Stephen Coles' article: http://typographica.org/on-typography/roboto-typeface-is-a-four-headed-frankenstein/
Before looking on the blog Typographica, I had only read approximately two or three articles/stories on typography. I have always appreciated the art as an observer with practically no knowledge of it until Visual Communication class. Now, I know a bit about serif, sans-serif and slab fonts, as well as some of the purposes they serve. Reading Stephen Coles’ Typographica article, “Roboto is a Four-headed Frankenfont,” taught me just how passionate typographers are about their work. Coles argues that the new typeface Google had created for high density displays looks terrible. To be completely honest, when I looked at the sample Coles provides, I was not disgusted by Roboto. I did not like it, but I did not loathe it. I felt that there is almost unlimited creativity in coming up with a new typeface, but I soon learned that thinking that is a mistake. Coles analyzes this new typeface and informs readers that it borrows design elements from a Grotesk sans and a Humanist sans. While he states that it is acceptable to combine these families, he claims that Roboto combines all the wrong elements from them to create a mish-mash of a typeface. There are unspoken rules in borrowing aspects of typeface families to make a new typeface. One must be diligent in his or her choices so that the combination is harmonious, not jarring or muddled. Google notes that the typeface was created for the high density display of a cell phone, so it may look different on that screen than that of a computer. I never realized that the device providing the medium for which the typeface is displayed can change the look of the letters and symbols. Now that smart phones are so common, typographers must be busy trying to make typefaces that look good on those screens.
www.typographica.org




