Ahh, the site loaded in Firefox. I was attempting in NetNewsWire. Downloaded and installed the TrueTypes.
As can be expected, attempts to fit the widths of another font result in a weak design. Such was the case with Arial, and Liberation Sans is similarly stunted. The Serif is more interesting.
I'm not surprised to hear it's Matteson. He's done this sort of metric matching work before.
I loaded these up and the Sans and Mono don't look bad in my email program. I suspect they are pretty extensively hinted. Looks better than Arial for small on-screen text.
The main question in my mind was their screen rendering quality, and it seems that's been answered encouragingly by Mark. And stylistically they're not half bad either. Good going!
10 May 2007 — 9:46pm
Would love to check this stuff out, but the site is erroring right now. When were these announced? Were the designers listed?
10 May 2007 — 9:57pm
The embedded font info shows they were designed by Steve Matteson at Ascender.
10 May 2007 — 10:02pm
Ahh, the site loaded in Firefox. I was attempting in NetNewsWire. Downloaded and installed the TrueTypes.
As can be expected, attempts to fit the widths of another font result in a weak design. Such was the case with Arial, and Liberation Sans is similarly stunted. The Serif is more interesting.
I'm not surprised to hear it's Matteson. He's done this sort of metric matching work before.
10 May 2007 — 10:04pm
Now that I look closer, it seems these may be the same fonts as Ascender Sans and Serif.
10 May 2007 — 10:11pm
Yup.
I loaded these up and the Sans and Mono don't look bad in my email program. I suspect they are pretty extensively hinted. Looks better than Arial for small on-screen text.
11 May 2007 — 12:01pm
The main question in my mind was their screen rendering quality, and it seems that's been answered encouragingly by Mark. And stylistically they're not half bad either. Good going!
hhp