Segoe UI but not as we know it...

Nick Job's picture

Looks like Segoe UI (see halfway down page) has undergone some sort of metamorphosis, particularly in the numbers department, for release with Windows 8.

Windows 8 uses a brand new version of Segoe UI that has a number of redesigned default characters...

How are those new numbers better? Love to know the rationale...

N

riccard0's picture

Link got stripped.

Nick Job's picture

Thanks guys. Link reinstated.

dezcom's picture

I like the old numbers better.

riccard0's picture

I like the old numbers better.

They have their charm. But from an UI point of view, I think the changes have their reason.

hrant's picture

BTW yours truly is proud to have consulted extensively on the Armenian component.

hhp

HVB's picture

Both old and new glyphs are available as stylistic alternates. I don't yet have access to the font, but have I read that the new glyphs are available as stylistic set 20 (ss20).

Nick Shinn's picture

MS has improved the figures, but apparently Adrian Frutiger got the alphabetic characters just right.

Nick Job's picture

MS has improved the figures, but apparently Adrian Frutiger got the alphabetic characters just right.

As shown by the reversion in the I and Q to something far nearer to Frutiger's model. Nick, do you think that Segoe is a ripoff then?

Riccardo, interested in why you think that 2 could be better than the original. Also interested in why the angle of the 4 could possibly be better concave versus convex or straight.

N

riccard0's picture

I think the new |2| has more balanced counters.
As for the |4|, I’m not sure, but I suspect it’s slightly concave so not to appear optically convex.

Nick Shinn's picture

…Segoe is a ripoff…

The correct design term is “swiped”.

Nick Job's picture

I think the new |2| has more balanced counters.
As for the |4|, I’m not sure, but I suspect it’s slightly concave so not to appear optically convex.

The counters in the /2/ might be more balanced but not many people would even call the bottom shape a counter or try to balance it. To me it looks grim. As for the /4/, I would have thought one wanted to open the counter up, not close it. I'm really not getting that at all, it certainly isn't convincing me it's straight (or not convex), that's crazy. Plus it looks so much wider than the other numerals :/

Nick, how many years must pass before one can "swipe" a design? Five, fifty, five hundred, never? Who decides? Why is a revival so much more acceptable? Isn't a revival a similar excuse for lack of originality/creativity masquerading as being the saviour of a design that would otherwise have been lost to us through the ruthlessness of natural selection? Maybe there's nothing new under the sun? After all, it's not like Segoe UI is traced from Frutiger.

I quite like Segoe UI although the places I dislike it tend to be where it deviates from Frutiger the most so maybe it's not Segoe UI that I like at all! As for the morals of its existence, I'll happily let others be the judge.

Si_Daniels's picture

The original numbers and forms for Q and I are still included under Stylistic Set 01.

Nick Job's picture

Let's be real about how many people actually use stylistic sets, impressive functionality though they represent.

hrant's picture

Sadly, Nick is dead on. In fact if people can save a few bucks on a non-"Pro" version of a font, they will.

hhp

Si_Daniels's picture

Well, yes, however the original forms are there for developers who want them, as well as a courtesy to those who may have decided to use a UI font for non-UI purpose. This is first and foremost a UI font for MS products and everything keys off of that

Si

dberlow's picture

So, was the 2 a change to disambiguate it from the Z?

Nick Job's picture

David, no, all the changes to the numbers were to disambiguate them from nice looking numbers! That the 2 looks less like a Z was purely coincidental :)

Syndicate content Syndicate content