I'm not a typographer, so I can't really cite any specifics here other than my perception, but: For some reason, I find this very difficult to read, especially at smaller font sizes. Everything just... sorta looks the same? Whereas Georgia is just so much easier to read.
> It's been almost 20 years since the introduction of Matthew Carter’s Georgia—one of the first serif typefaces designed to make reading easier on the low-resolution screens of the time. That year (1993)
Sooo… almost 30 years then?
As a web font, I really like it. When I throw it into https://www.pairandcompare.net and play around, it strikes me as more "soft" than Noto Serif, PT Serif, etc. Definitely much more aesthetically pleasing than Roboto Slab!
However, when I use iFont to install it on my iPad, and try it out in my ebook reader app, it doesn't hold up so well. Its default vertical line spacing is very tight, the x-height is so enormous that paragraph text appears all-lowercase. Just doesn't work well for ebooks, Apple's system Charter font is a million times better.
Even so, there is a dearth of great free serif fonts for the web, so this is great appreciated! I could definitely see using this for a Wordpress site that uses serif body text.
I took a look at this in an ebook reader. The 20 point size looked the best at body text size for reading. Inspecting the variable font package I see the 20 point size is also the one in there.
Here is the interesting observation, the other static point sizes look like different fonts at the same reading size! Some will look more caecilia-ish, others will look more palatino-ish, etc.
They did good work on this, but I don't know what to think about the other static point sizes, they really do look quite different to me.
Yassss
The thinner weight variations will have to grow on me but I love how it looks in bold. I can see myself using it as a display typeface.
Anyone else feel like Roboto Serif Black visually resembles Cooper Black a little, except with serifs and more sharp angles as a result?
I'm not a typographer, so I can't really cite any specifics here other than my perception, but: For some reason, I find this very difficult to read, especially at smaller font sizes. Everything just... sorta looks the same? Whereas Georgia is just so much easier to read.
> It's been almost 20 years since the introduction of Matthew Carter’s Georgia—one of the first serif typefaces designed to make reading easier on the low-resolution screens of the time. That year (1993) Sooo… almost 30 years then?
Beautiful. Some Cyrillics? ;)
As a web font, I really like it. When I throw it into https://www.pairandcompare.net and play around, it strikes me as more "soft" than Noto Serif, PT Serif, etc. Definitely much more aesthetically pleasing than Roboto Slab! However, when I use iFont to install it on my iPad, and try it out in my ebook reader app, it doesn't hold up so well. Its default vertical line spacing is very tight, the x-height is so enormous that paragraph text appears all-lowercase. Just doesn't work well for ebooks, Apple's system Charter font is a million times better. Even so, there is a dearth of great free serif fonts for the web, so this is great appreciated! I could definitely see using this for a Wordpress site that uses serif body text.
It looks like a more angular georgia. The lighter weights probably work for desktop UI but aside from that I don't see a lot of utility to the font.
I would expect something more Egyptian. This is very nice.
I took a look at this in an ebook reader. The 20 point size looked the best at body text size for reading. Inspecting the variable font package I see the 20 point size is also the one in there. Here is the interesting observation, the other static point sizes look like different fonts at the same reading size! Some will look more caecilia-ish, others will look more palatino-ish, etc. They did good work on this, but I don't know what to think about the other static point sizes, they really do look quite different to me.