undefined | Better HN

0 pointshuhtenberg11mo ago0 comments

https://nebulasans.com/img/handgloves.png

0 comments

tobr11mo ago

I saw that. Here's a quick similar comparison between Nebula Sans and Source Sans I just whipped up: https://imgur.com/JPwgYkj

huhtenbergOP11mo ago

It's more about overall look and feel, which in large part comes from the glyph proportions (the x-height), spacing and weights - https://i.imgur.com/mygqn3H.png

Glyph proportions between Whitney and Nebula are almost identical. As are their weights. Source Sans is substantially heavier and more dense looking.

While individual glyphs may be closer between Nebula and Source Sans, but the overall feel of Nebula is that of Whitney.

jibal11mo ago

Failed rebuttal of tobr's clearly true statement. Your own png refutes your position.

concerndc1tizen11mo ago

So, it's worse than Source Sans because it removed the differentiation between a lowercase L and an uppercase i.

I'd rather use Source Sans then.

creata11mo ago

Tangentially, there are two versions of Source Sans worth considering afaik:

* the latest OTF

* the Source Sans 2.020 TTF, which is the last version (at least, the last version released in the GitHub repository[0]) that has manual hinting

[0]: https://github.com/adobe-fonts/source-sans/releases

delta_p_delta_x11mo ago

The two typefaces couldn't look more different. Look at the stroke cuts on the ascenders of the 'd', 'l', the stroke cuts on the 'a', 'e', and 's'.

stared11mo ago

Is there some online tool for comparing fonts that way?

notpushkin11mo ago

I’m wondering why they’ve added the slanted top on ‘t’, but not the other letters: https://nebula.tv/videos/nebula-sans?t=363

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse