Netflix Sans, a new custom typeface(itsnicethat.com)
itsnicethat.com
Netflix Sans, a new custom typeface
https://www.itsnicethat.com/news/netflix-sans-typeface-dalton-maag-graphic-design-210318
65 comments
My assumption was that the design firm wanted to make sure the font held up well when used dynamically in complex media, using well known photography available to Netflix, not that they were proposing logo changes for those properties.
Are they even responsible for creating those show branding/advertising graphics used in the examples? I thought that'd be the responsibility of the production companies as they submit content. Although maybe they want some consistency when it's within the Netflix app...
But agreed, I hope it becomes their UI font and not used in everything out of laziness or some pursuit of functional standardization over emotional aesthetics.
But agreed, I hope it becomes their UI font and not used in everything out of laziness or some pursuit of functional standardization over emotional aesthetics.
I got the impression the article author had put those together.
Credit below these images goes to Netflix and Dalton Maag (one of the most famous typeface design studios, https://www.daltonmaag.com/)
Seems like an odd thing for them to do. For me it came off as netflix either changing the branding or wanting to show off the font in a creative way.
One thing that annoys me on Netflix... is the Netflix logo on show's thumbnail...
I wouldn't mind a Netflix label in the UI, but watermarking every covers feels gross, it dilutes the personality of each show.
I wouldn't mind a Netflix label in the UI, but watermarking every covers feels gross, it dilutes the personality of each show.
I actually appreciate the instantly visible branding; Netflix shows are among the few guaranteed to have proper subtitles.
I see you have not watched La Casa de Papel (or, as they have recently creatively rebranded it in English, "Money Heist"). Yeah, it wasn't produced by Netflix, but they stick their branding on it and have numerous errors in the subtitles.
Netflix productions have errors and missing lines, but they're at least always available. I report the problems and they get fixed pretty quickly.
Here (Japan region), it's fairly difficult to find things with subtitles, which I pretty much need, so I'll take what I can get.
Here (Japan region), it's fairly difficult to find things with subtitles, which I pretty much need, so I'll take what I can get.
You get extremely lucky then. Violet Evergarden has a hilariously badly subtitled sequence in S1E2 at 7:25. The whole thing is wrong, but in short, she says "you wanted a girl" when she said "your parents wanted a girl" and talks about him saying a girl's name in bed when she was talking about herself.
I reported this back in jan 19, and it's still fucked.
I reported this back in jan 19, and it's still fucked.
That does sound bad -- have you tried pinging them again? Usually when I report issues, they're English issues, so the check/fix process is probably much simpler for them.
For a little background information, I'm mostly deaf, so I generally use subtitles for English (my native language) in English-language programs, so the problems we encounter are likely very different. :)
At this level of handicap, I'm simply happy that the subtitles exist -- I can't say the same for Hulu or Amazon Video.
For a little background information, I'm mostly deaf, so I generally use subtitles for English (my native language) in English-language programs, so the problems we encounter are likely very different. :)
At this level of handicap, I'm simply happy that the subtitles exist -- I can't say the same for Hulu or Amazon Video.
Called them directly and they told me "it's only fixed if many people report it" (ain't gonna happen), and "since this is licensed content, it depends on the other company and we have no idea whatsoever when or if it's gonna be fixed, or even how long we'll carry the series for". So much for "netflix original".
That's terrible service, sorry to hear that. :(
It's sadly how the licensing business works. Although i do 100% blame netflix for calling it a "netflix original" when all they did was buy a license and be sent files they can't touch.
As someone with decent difficulty understanding spoken english, yeah, i do choose netflix over amazon video for that reason as well (no hulu in germany, and often amazon subs have only german subs here).
I've poked Netflix again this week, but really, i don't expect anything. It's not like they respond to the original complaint. Often these services just put up the files given by their contract partners and then walk away. RWBY on crunchyroll has no english subtitles either despite being originally english. Roosterteeth, the creator company, is aware of this and hasn't fixed it in the year since i reported it. To make it worse, the page claims english subs are available.
For evergarden though, torrenting from a dedicated translation group is the only option to get non-broken subs at the moment.
I've poked Netflix again this week, but really, i don't expect anything. It's not like they respond to the original complaint. Often these services just put up the files given by their contract partners and then walk away. RWBY on crunchyroll has no english subtitles either despite being originally english. Roosterteeth, the creator company, is aware of this and hasn't fixed it in the year since i reported it. To make it worse, the page claims english subs are available.
For evergarden though, torrenting from a dedicated translation group is the only option to get non-broken subs at the moment.
That's about the only guarantee though. Some 'Netflix Originals' are purchased from other broadcasting companies, there's wildly inconsistent quality across then...
I love Netflix and all but the little name in the corner doesn't mean much.
I love Netflix and all but the little name in the corner doesn't mean much.
Yes if the watermark was for original Netflix Originals I would appreciate the utility. Even Red vs. Blue is marked as a Netflix Original but I believe it predates even YouTube.
I would disagree with that... Netflix's subs might be passable when they don't have to deal with translating on-screen text, but when that is the case (like with anime, which they've been investing a lot of money into) the presentation is just horrible. Just look at the video in this tweet: https://twitter.com/Daiz42/status/949379951194726401 (also look for the video in the follow-up tweet demonstrating how much better it could be with just some simple changes)
The state of official anime subs is just bad everywhere. Crunchyroll's are not-infrequently total gibberish. Netflix's handling of signs is indeed awful but they do at least (usually) write decent translations. I won't say that fansubs are any better on average but the only actual well-done subs are all fansubs which is kind of sad.
They seem to state in the article that they will use this in brand and identity but they don't mention use of this in the UI.
> As a UI font, this is pretty great.
I disagree. With high-resolution displays becoming the norm, I'm questioning why so much of the industry is still stuck on sans-serif fonts for UI, and worse, regressing from humanist sanses to neo-grotesk fonts, which are the worst (seriously, if you have to use a sans, use something like Myriad or Noto Sans... which Apple and Google used to use before they jumped on the neo-grotesk bandwagon).
The only reason to not use a serif font is because at low resolutions, the serifs blur into a mess, but low resolutions aren't an issue anymore. And on top of that, hinting is a thing. Serif fonts have objectively better readability, and subjectively they're much prettier than anything else.
I've been using Noto Serif as my main UI font on pretty much everything for a couple of years now, and it's absolutely perfect. I'll never go back to a sans for UI.
I disagree. With high-resolution displays becoming the norm, I'm questioning why so much of the industry is still stuck on sans-serif fonts for UI, and worse, regressing from humanist sanses to neo-grotesk fonts, which are the worst (seriously, if you have to use a sans, use something like Myriad or Noto Sans... which Apple and Google used to use before they jumped on the neo-grotesk bandwagon).
The only reason to not use a serif font is because at low resolutions, the serifs blur into a mess, but low resolutions aren't an issue anymore. And on top of that, hinting is a thing. Serif fonts have objectively better readability, and subjectively they're much prettier than anything else.
I've been using Noto Serif as my main UI font on pretty much everything for a couple of years now, and it's absolutely perfect. I'll never go back to a sans for UI.
> With high-resolution displays becoming the norm
It will be years before TVs as well as desktop monitors are HiDPI in overwhelming numbers. 720p/1080p is pretty much the norm for those now. These fonts are meant to be usable on the vast majority (> 95%) of customer's screens, not just the minority (majority soon) of HiDPI screens.
> The only reason to not use a serif font is because at low resolutions, the serifs blur into a mess, […]
Nonsense. It's also an aesthetic call. We are not just using sans-serif fonts because our screens can't do better; sometimes they just work on their own merits (whether that's legibility or appearance).
It will be years before TVs as well as desktop monitors are HiDPI in overwhelming numbers. 720p/1080p is pretty much the norm for those now. These fonts are meant to be usable on the vast majority (> 95%) of customer's screens, not just the minority (majority soon) of HiDPI screens.
> The only reason to not use a serif font is because at low resolutions, the serifs blur into a mess, […]
Nonsense. It's also an aesthetic call. We are not just using sans-serif fonts because our screens can't do better; sometimes they just work on their own merits (whether that's legibility or appearance).
>Serif fonts have objectively better readability
This claim is often repeated but questionable at best.
>subjectively they're much prettier than anything else
They might be pretty to you (and this is such a subjective claim that using it as evidence for favoring serif fonts is pointless) but users are pretty used to sans UI fonts at this point, and there's 0 reason to alienate them with something "prettier".
This claim is often repeated but questionable at best.
>subjectively they're much prettier than anything else
They might be pretty to you (and this is such a subjective claim that using it as evidence for favoring serif fonts is pointless) but users are pretty used to sans UI fonts at this point, and there's 0 reason to alienate them with something "prettier".
My reaction as designer is different. Today, UIs often get quite complex, and can contain at least few different sizes of the text.
1. Serifs often have uneven stroke weights which make them actually actually harder to read in small sizes (8-15), since the thin parts start to breakdown.
2. Letterforms are more complex and generally create more "visual noise" or the texture of the text gets noisy since you have lot of points and ticks on the screen.
I think serifs can work well on titles that are large, quotes, in print or simple ui like articles where you one column of text, mostly in one size. For UI, especially mobile UI feel like it can be quite jarring in any more complex app.
Legibility also comes from the different factors of the typeface (x-height, open counters, distinct letterforms) not only from the fact that it's serif or sans serif.
1. Serifs often have uneven stroke weights which make them actually actually harder to read in small sizes (8-15), since the thin parts start to breakdown.
2. Letterforms are more complex and generally create more "visual noise" or the texture of the text gets noisy since you have lot of points and ticks on the screen.
I think serifs can work well on titles that are large, quotes, in print or simple ui like articles where you one column of text, mostly in one size. For UI, especially mobile UI feel like it can be quite jarring in any more complex app.
Legibility also comes from the different factors of the typeface (x-height, open counters, distinct letterforms) not only from the fact that it's serif or sans serif.
Have to agree, it's bit disappointing the most common style of font used are the minimalist ones like Google's font or Facebook's. I mean for pixel blurring reasons it makes sense but if we have stronger computers, we can avoid that problem more often, no?
> Serif fonts have objectively better readability
Actually, for reading long books some serif fonts will tire my sight faster than sans-serif fonts.
It seems to me font readability design is a lot more complex than simply serif vs sans-serif.
Actually, for reading long books some serif fonts will tire my sight faster than sans-serif fonts.
It seems to me font readability design is a lot more complex than simply serif vs sans-serif.
I have been using LinuxLibertine for text. It's just about perfect. Noto Serif looks like it was intended as a caption font.
This announcement is interesting but it's unfortunate that the visual balance in the first rendered image is troubled.
In particular, the uppercase "N", the lowercase "e", and the lowercase "t" do not harmonize. The kerning between the "N" and the "e" needs tweaking.
This imbalance is especially noticeable because the balance between the characters "tflix" is magnificent, a small textual portrait practically worth framing on its own.
In particular, the uppercase "N", the lowercase "e", and the lowercase "t" do not harmonize. The kerning between the "N" and the "e" needs tweaking.
This imbalance is especially noticeable because the balance between the characters "tflix" is magnificent, a small textual portrait practically worth framing on its own.
Agree. Terrible first sample.
Especially on the sample shows, rendered too thin on most, feels cheap, super generic, like a poor man’s Arial.
Could maybe somehow be for legibility on really bad TVs?
Especially on the sample shows, rendered too thin on most, feels cheap, super generic, like a poor man’s Arial.
Could maybe somehow be for legibility on really bad TVs?
Maybe it's just you and a small handful of people, but I don't find any fault in the typeface. Beautiful!
I felt like this too. I'm also confused by the "subtle cinemascopic curve" at the top of the "t" which doesn't appear to be replicated anywhere else in the font.
Well, it's much more successful a design department indulgence than https://dropbox.design
It looks pretty good. But both initiatives are retro throwback Design Affectations — "Our Own Helvetica!" — and, for my tastes, it is a little bit twee to apply it over the whole interface. A better executed PT Cruiser is still a PT Cruiser.
It feels like a corporate design macro fashion trend, like ultrathin weight fonts were a few years ago, or square composition photos and enforced circular cropped avatars.
It looks pretty good. But both initiatives are retro throwback Design Affectations — "Our Own Helvetica!" — and, for my tastes, it is a little bit twee to apply it over the whole interface. A better executed PT Cruiser is still a PT Cruiser.
It feels like a corporate design macro fashion trend, like ultrathin weight fonts were a few years ago, or square composition photos and enforced circular cropped avatars.
That site feels like they took everything wrong about legacy powerpoints and made that a design-standard.
That page just hurt my eyes...
Really? I actually liked it. It doesn't look like most of tech redesgins, reminds me of American Ads from the 60's. I like how they do thing differently.
As a design person, I think it's pretty terrible. But it is also terrible with such conviction that you can't help but wonder, "hrm, I suppose this is good?"
With that said though, even though that particular page looks terrible, I think properly implemented page can look pretty compelling.
With that said though, even though that particular page looks terrible, I think properly implemented page can look pretty compelling.
> With the global nature of Netflix’s business, font licensing can get quite expensive
Interesting that they'd say "global" when the font shown is just basic English -- no accents, circumflexes, etc.
I'll be really interested if they make their own CJK font as well -- that's a tremendous undertaking.
Interesting that they'd say "global" when the font shown is just basic English -- no accents, circumflexes, etc.
I'll be really interested if they make their own CJK font as well -- that's a tremendous undertaking.
A lot of licenses are negotiated based on viewership and market size. I'd imagine that they computed cost-benefit and determined that doing basic English letters was sufficient to cut their licensing costs. iQiyi would probably benefit from a custom CJK font, depending on how those licenses work in Asia.
> creating a bespoke font was driven by escalating costs
> With the global nature of Netflix’s business, font licensing can get quite expensive
How does it work? I thought commercial fonts were a one-time purchase, is it different for businesses like Netflix?
> With the global nature of Netflix’s business, font licensing can get quite expensive
How does it work? I thought commercial fonts were a one-time purchase, is it different for businesses like Netflix?
From the article
> saves the company millions of dollars a year as foundries move towards impression-based licensing for their typefaces in many digital advertising spaces.
> saves the company millions of dollars a year as foundries move towards impression-based licensing for their typefaces in many digital advertising spaces.
Yes. Most commercial fonts are actually not a one time purchase, but are instead licensed over a period of time. The licensing agreement usually stipulates how many time they may serve that font from their services - the more time it is served, the more $$$ it costs
A lot of commercial fonts are a one time purchase for non-web use like print, but have a separate clause for modern techniques like @font-face, where a one time licence often specifies a maximum number of impressions per month/year.
Doesn't appear to be open source. Too bad.
I'm not a fan of sans serif fonts that make it hard to tell the difference between I and l.
Any visual comparisons available between this font and their previous primary font they were using? Or Helvetica which it seems very similar to?
I, too, like the Neue Haas Grotesk variant of Helvetica. But I can't get too excited about another teeny tweak to it.
Does Netflix's existing wordmark use Netflix Sans (retroactively)? Will the wordmark be updated?
It wasn't clear in the article. It said "the arched cut on the lowercase “t” is apparently inspired by the “cinemascopic curve” of the brand’s wordmark". "Inspired by" suggests it is not an exact match.
It wasn't clear in the article. It said "the arched cut on the lowercase “t” is apparently inspired by the “cinemascopic curve” of the brand’s wordmark". "Inspired by" suggests it is not an exact match.
The font doesn't really look anything like the wordmark (unless there's a condensed version?) so I'd assume they're separate.
The blurb about saving on font licensing costs, reminds me about RLM's apocryphal quip about George Lucas saving money on printer ink by change "Revenge of the Jedi" to "Return of the Jedi"
as foundries move towards impression-based licensing for their typefaces in many digital advertising spaces
That's a fancy way of saying "as foundries price themselves out of business"
That's a fancy way of saying "as foundries price themselves out of business"
First thought: looks like the nutella typeface mixed with helvetica.
With all the Sans typefaces that exist, it must resembles at least one of them.
What would happen with the similarities in terms of rights?
Because none of the 858 open source, free for commercial use Google Fonts were a good fit? Such an excess.
Or the FLOSS alternative Google created to specifically solve the whole "International Audience" problem. [0]
The slight curve on the lower-t of Netflix Sans actually bothers me because it's the only curve of its kind. The "straight exit strokes" and "flat horizontal terminals" makes it inconsistent. Why not use that curve for the starting verticals of the lower-b, lower-d, or lower-h? [1]
[0] https://www.google.com/get/noto/
[1] https://vgy.me/kJ2plQ.png
The slight curve on the lower-t of Netflix Sans actually bothers me because it's the only curve of its kind. The "straight exit strokes" and "flat horizontal terminals" makes it inconsistent. Why not use that curve for the starting verticals of the lower-b, lower-d, or lower-h? [1]
[0] https://www.google.com/get/noto/
[1] https://vgy.me/kJ2plQ.png
Like the world needs yet another Sans typeface.
The only objective measure of the value of a typeface for reading comprehension showed that serif faces are overwhelmingly better. The only thing favoring sans-serif faces is fashionability among graphic designers. Making new ones does nothing for anyone except the designer.
The only objective measure of the value of a typeface for reading comprehension showed that serif faces are overwhelmingly better. The only thing favoring sans-serif faces is fashionability among graphic designers. Making new ones does nothing for anyone except the designer.
Seems like most of the research on that is inconclusive. There's not much evidence one is much more readable than the other.
http://alexpoole.info/blog/fighting-bad-typography-research/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serif#Readability_and_legibili...
http://alexpoole.info/blog/fighting-bad-typography-research/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serif#Readability_and_legibili...
However, most disappointing and worrying part of font presentation is applications to different movies and TV shows. With the same typeface, they completely lose their identity.
Strong, condensed typeface of House of Cards. 80s-inspired typeface for Stranger Things. Minimal and geometric typeface for OA. Cyrillic alphabet inspired treatment of R in Icarus.
They all were different and appropriate, and here they are all very 2010's generic sans-serif, losing all personality.
I'm happy to see Netflix Sans in UI, but sure hope it doesn't go deeper, into actual show branding.