Canonical Preparing Updated Ubuntu Font For Ubuntu 23.04

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Canonical Preparing Updated Ubuntu Font For Ubuntu 23.04

Canonical is preparing to ship an updated set of Ubuntu Font files for the Ubuntu 23.04 "Lunar Lobster" release but is hoping to see more user testing ahead of the official release next month...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Ubuntu-23.04-Updated-Font

[acobar]

Nice! Even though most of my computers run versions of openSUSE, I always borrow the Ubuntu fonts from the lonely computer running Ubuntu linux.

[cynic]

great! The Ubuntu font is the only contribute I value from Canonical!

[skeevy420]

No sir, I don't like it.

Specifically, it's the lower case U. It looks like the lower case V got drunk and is doing whatever it can to stand up. If y'all look close, the lowercase U is an inverted lowercase N. They're the same thing. Then you look closer and realize that the lowercase M is a copy of the lowercase N that's taking a pee. They really need to redesign that M. The 2nd hump on that M doesn't seem follow the design paradigm the rest of the lettering seems to use. It looks like they put real thought into 25/26 lowercase letters and whet "Oh Snap, we forgot 'm'!" at the last minute. The lower stems on the lowercase P and Q look too short when compared to the upper stems on the lowercase B, H, and D. The stylistic curve you see on the tops of the lowercase B and D and bottom of the lowercase P and Q aren't as pronounced on the lowercase G and H so the G and H look like they belong to a different, but similar, font. All the lowercase but not-full-case fonts should be shrunk by 3-5% (like "a" and "c", not "b" or "t"). They look too tall.

In regards to the uppercase letters, the middle of A is too low compared to the the rest of the uppercase letters. G looks funky without it's middle. Q looks like a balloon. 4 looks weird with that slight curve and has the same issue as the uppercase A with the middle being too low compared to the rest of the font.

[cynic]

No sir, I don't like it.

Specifically, it's the lower case U. It looks like the lower case V got drunk and is doing whatever it can to stand up. If y'all look close, the lowercase U is an inverted lowercase N. They're the same thing. Then you look closer and realize that the lowercase M is a copy of the lowercase N that's taking a pee. They really need to redesign that M. The 2nd hump on that M doesn't seem follow the design paradigm the rest of the lettering seems to use. It looks like they put real thought into 25/26 lowercase letters and whet "Oh Snap, we forgot 'm'!" at the last minute. The lower stems on the lowercase P and Q look too short when compared to the upper stems on the lowercase B, H, and D. The stylistic curve you see on the tops of the lowercase B and D and bottom of the lowercase P and Q aren't as pronounced on the lowercase G and H so the G and H look like they belong to a different, but similar, font. All the lowercase but not-full-case fonts should be shrunk by 3-5% (like "a" and "c", not "b" or "t"). They look too tall.

In regards to the uppercase letters, the middle of A is too low compared to the the rest of the uppercase letters. G looks funky without it's middle. Q looks like a balloon. 4 looks weird with that slight curve and has the same issue as the uppercase A with the middle being too low compared to the rest of the font.

Also, is it me or the uppercase U goes a bit under the other letters?

[ll1025]

Also, is it me or the uppercase U goes a bit under the other letters?

It is hard to find much to like about the font. It's not a terrible font-- it's certainly better than Times New Roman-- but the spacing between letters is pretty large and I would assume that a well-designed font could get by with *less* kerning.

I'm not really clear why existing fonts are deficient. It looks like Ubuntu last worked on fonts a little over 10 years ago (10.04?). Calibri / Segoe UI have been going strong for something like 17 years, and while Microsoft is talking about maybe replacing them at some point that's a ways off. Has there been some new revolution in font design or some major deficiency that makes this a reasonable use of resources?

[skeevy420]

Also, is it me or the uppercase U goes a bit under the other letters?

It is, but you only see it when typed. Since the U is the same size in the A-Z font family preview picture but smaller in actual typed lettering, I now wonder how many other letters in that font have different heights.

[skeevy420]

It is hard to find much to like about the font. It's not a terrible font-- it's certainly better than Times New Roman-- but the spacing between letters is pretty large and I would assume that a well-designed font could get by with *less* kerning.

I'm not really clear why existing fonts are deficient. It looks like Ubuntu last worked on fonts a little over 10 years ago (10.04?). Calibri / Segoe UI have been going strong for something like 17 years, and while they're talking about maybe replacing them at some point that's a ways off. Has there been some new revolution in font design that makes this reasonable?

No, it's the standard tech company UI revamp that they all do every decade or so. They're just trying to stay new, fresh, hip, and relevant. Even more so than the desktop environment, the default font is most interacted with part of an operating system. Nearly everything interacted with will use that font. By changing the font, you change the look and feel of everything.

Personally, I'd like them to go with a stylized Serif font over a plain-Jane Sans font.

[MorrisS.]

IMHO the most beautiful Font is FF DIN.
DIN Pro regular.

[Old Grouch]

If I put on my tinfoil hat, then I'd say it has been forced on Canonical by three-letter-agencies so they can datestamp documents, and detect modern forgeries of old documents.

Ars Technica 2017-07-13: Not for the first time, Microsoft’s fonts have caught out forgers
Ars Technica 2019-01-15: Microsoft’s fonts catch out another fraudster—this time in Canada

But yes, I think it is far more likely that someone thinks that in order to 'freshen up the image', some annoying and irrelevant changes need to be made. It's not an entirely modern habit - styles of handwriting used before typewriters and other text processing technology became ubiquitous changed over the years - such changes allow experts to date handwritten documents - not to the day of production of course, but at least to the era.