undefined | Better HN

0 pointstptacek7y ago0 comments

Many (most?) of those typefaces are commercially licensed, and can't serve as a universal "default" for typography across all the USG's web properties. Additionally: almost none of them are in OS/browser font stacks, so using them would incur logistical problems in addition to licensing.

0 comments

JdeBP7y ago

There are two problems with that reasoning. First: it is clearly contradicted by the inclusion of Source Sans Pro and Merriweather, both licensed under the SIL OFL and developed by third parties, in the USWDS list of components. Second: creating another font that isn't in operating systems and WWW browsers does not solve the latter problem.

* https://github.com/uswds/uswds-for-designers#fonts

* https://designsystem.digital.gov/components/typography/

* https://github.com/adobe-fonts/source-sans-pro

* https://github.com/SorkinType/Merriweather/blob/master/READM...

optymizer7y ago

Switching to Public Sans solves none of the problems you're pointing out.

According to the Public Sans's Github page, "Source Sans Pro" was the USWDS default, which is a SIL font (so no licensing issues) and is also not in the OS/browser font stack.

jancsika7y ago

I don't understand your second point. Public Sans isn't in OS/browser font stacks, either. What makes its inclusion more likely than, say, a 15 year-old open source font like DejaVu Sans?

tptacekOP7y ago

I took the parent comment to be saying, "look, there are all these preexisting sans typefaces, why not just take one of the ones on this list". The answer: because they'd have to arrange to pay, and to source them from the commercial services that make them available.

I agree that there are other typefaces they could use! I was mostly commenting on how a list of faces that includes Avenir, Univers, and FF Meta was probably not the best summary of the available options.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse