Dear Startups, Lobster is the new Comic Sans(5in5nyc.com)
5in5nyc.com
Dear Startups, Lobster is the new Comic Sans
http://5in5nyc.com/2012/05/31/dear-startups-lobster-is-the-new-comic-sans
67 comments
Lobster and Comic Sans are both highly stylized font-faces, Helvetica is not. It's okay for Helvetica to be common because it doesn't scream "Hey look at me, I'm Helvetica!"
When non-stylized things become very common, it's usually because they're good all around choices: their popularity advances the field. When extremely stylized things become very common, it typically leads to embarrassment down the road.
In music for example, it's now very common to have the drums in the center of the mix. This is the default because it makes sense. You only notice the panning of the drums when it's something else. In the eighties it became extremely common to use almost nothing but synths, and to have the snare drum drenched in reverb. You listen back to eighties material now, and at best you appreciate the campiness of these things. Mostly they seem like a weird obsession that suddenly gripped the whole industry and warped everything to come out of it for a decade. The modern day equivalent of course is Autotune.
When non-stylized things become very common, it's usually because they're good all around choices: their popularity advances the field. When extremely stylized things become very common, it typically leads to embarrassment down the road.
In music for example, it's now very common to have the drums in the center of the mix. This is the default because it makes sense. You only notice the panning of the drums when it's something else. In the eighties it became extremely common to use almost nothing but synths, and to have the snare drum drenched in reverb. You listen back to eighties material now, and at best you appreciate the campiness of these things. Mostly they seem like a weird obsession that suddenly gripped the whole industry and warped everything to come out of it for a decade. The modern day equivalent of course is Autotune.
Grotesque sans were uncommon before the (say) 60s, and were very stylized for the time. You just don't notice that because we've been accustomed to them for so long, and because they are very effective for their purpose.
The parent comment is correct. Comic Sans isn't just stylized; it's a stylized face designed for a very particular purpose (as a stand-in for the hand lettering in comic books). And the problem with Comic Sans isn't that it's overused. It's that it's used in inappropriate places.
There is nothing wrong with making safe, popular choices in typefaces. Designers may gripe about how cliched Gotham is, but Gotham works. Comic Sans virtually never works. This post does not make a case that Lobster never works.
The parent comment is correct. Comic Sans isn't just stylized; it's a stylized face designed for a very particular purpose (as a stand-in for the hand lettering in comic books). And the problem with Comic Sans isn't that it's overused. It's that it's used in inappropriate places.
There is nothing wrong with making safe, popular choices in typefaces. Designers may gripe about how cliched Gotham is, but Gotham works. Comic Sans virtually never works. This post does not make a case that Lobster never works.
> Grotesque sans were uncommon before the (say) 60s, and were very stylized for the time.
Source?
Wikipedia sayeth about Helvetica:
"The aim of the new design was to create a neutral typeface that had great clarity, no intrinsic meaning in its form, and could be used on a wide variety of signage."
There's a history of sans-serifs (with emphasis on grotesques) here http://www.linotype.com/en/795/thesansseriftypefaces.html?PH... that seems to suggest they had caught on pretty well by the 20s.
Source?
Wikipedia sayeth about Helvetica:
"The aim of the new design was to create a neutral typeface that had great clarity, no intrinsic meaning in its form, and could be used on a wide variety of signage."
There's a history of sans-serifs (with emphasis on grotesques) here http://www.linotype.com/en/795/thesansseriftypefaces.html?PH... that seems to suggest they had caught on pretty well by the 20s.
Best I can do:
http://www.freddesign.co.uk/2010/04/archive/the-differences-...
... which suggests that Akzidenz didn't come into modern use until the '50s.
http://www.freddesign.co.uk/2010/04/archive/the-differences-...
... which suggests that Akzidenz didn't come into modern use until the '50s.
> It's okay for Helvetica to be common because it doesn't scream "Hey look at me, I'm Helvetica!"
But it does scream that at me.
But it does scream that at me.
I was shooting for the same thing. This guy does not seems to know anything about typography and his article is ridiculously small for such a big topic.
Comic Sans is grotesque and was badly designed from the start. One has to wonder why it was popular, i'm sure there is a ton of article about that (surely the author should have deepen a bit in the subject and check that),
But if I would have to guess, in the 2000 debut it was one of the widely available fonts that had a different (poor) look.
Lobster is NOTHING like comic sans, it's a good font unfortunately overused. That's it.
Comic Sans is grotesque and was badly designed from the start. One has to wonder why it was popular, i'm sure there is a ton of article about that (surely the author should have deepen a bit in the subject and check that),
But if I would have to guess, in the 2000 debut it was one of the widely available fonts that had a different (poor) look.
Lobster is NOTHING like comic sans, it's a good font unfortunately overused. That's it.
The vast majority of readers are not font snobs. They don't debate the merits of kerning or whitespace balance.
But they do notice when trendy fonts trend. And comic sans most certainly did trend, and it was that trend -- and not its relative font merit -- that made it so deridden. It is the Croc shoes of the font world. Wow that analogy works really well because while shoe snobs can rail off the problems with the mighty croc (ignoring its benefits), they completely miss the mark on why there is the general anti-croc backlash (hint -- hipsterism. Anti-populism. etc)
This article is dead-on.
But they do notice when trendy fonts trend. And comic sans most certainly did trend, and it was that trend -- and not its relative font merit -- that made it so deridden. It is the Croc shoes of the font world. Wow that analogy works really well because while shoe snobs can rail off the problems with the mighty croc (ignoring its benefits), they completely miss the mark on why there is the general anti-croc backlash (hint -- hipsterism. Anti-populism. etc)
This article is dead-on.
Except I would refute that users are as aware of Lobster as the author might think.
Comic Sans shows up everywhere. Lecture slides, shop signs, product packaging... it (was|is)? ubiquitous.
Now, Lobster might twig in the minds of typography geeks and designers, but it isn't nearly prevalent enough to be in the concious of 99.999% of users. Let's face it, 99.999% users don't spend all their time on start-up websites.
Comic Sans shows up everywhere. Lecture slides, shop signs, product packaging... it (was|is)? ubiquitous.
Now, Lobster might twig in the minds of typography geeks and designers, but it isn't nearly prevalent enough to be in the concious of 99.999% of users. Let's face it, 99.999% users don't spend all their time on start-up websites.
Comic sans was never trendy, as such. Instead, its ubiquity was due to the fact that:
a) It was included in the default font set of just about every computer sold from nineteen-ninety-something to today, and
b) It was the only default font that was "fun" and "not boring" to the great unwashed masses of typographically unsophisticated people (a category in which I include even myself)
So everybody from teenagers to grandmothers would look through their font list and go "boring, boring, boring, ooh this one looks like handwriting, that's fun, I'll go with that". The other reason it's derided is therefore that it's used by design-naive people and hence associated with bad design; Comic Sans is very likely to be accompanied by flashing pink text and ugly clip art.
While writing this, I suddenly noticed that the expenses reimbursement form sitting on the desk in front of me is in Comic Sans. So add "HR reps" to the list.
a) It was included in the default font set of just about every computer sold from nineteen-ninety-something to today, and
b) It was the only default font that was "fun" and "not boring" to the great unwashed masses of typographically unsophisticated people (a category in which I include even myself)
So everybody from teenagers to grandmothers would look through their font list and go "boring, boring, boring, ooh this one looks like handwriting, that's fun, I'll go with that". The other reason it's derided is therefore that it's used by design-naive people and hence associated with bad design; Comic Sans is very likely to be accompanied by flashing pink text and ugly clip art.
While writing this, I suddenly noticed that the expenses reimbursement form sitting on the desk in front of me is in Comic Sans. So add "HR reps" to the list.
Well, you probably really should not use Helvetica or Arial in your logo.
Part of the beauty of Helvetica is that people typically don't think about it. It's everywhere and it's a subtle typeface. That's why many brands use it in their wordmarks.
For example, see Helvetica and Neue Helvetica in the logos of BMW, 3M, Gap, American Apparel, Jeep, The NBA, Lufthansa, Target, Motorola, Verizon Wireless, McDonald's and Microsoft. There are many others I'm sure.
Now if you had said Papyrus, I would tend to agree with you.
For example, see Helvetica and Neue Helvetica in the logos of BMW, 3M, Gap, American Apparel, Jeep, The NBA, Lufthansa, Target, Motorola, Verizon Wireless, McDonald's and Microsoft. There are many others I'm sure.
Now if you had said Papyrus, I would tend to agree with you.
But all of those logos were designed decades ago, and it was a perfectly reasonable typeface for logo design. The reason it has been used so often is, of course, that it is a very well designed font. But the whole point here is that its ubiquity makes it generally a poor choice for new logos. An aesthetic does not exist in a vacuum, and the cultural context of Helvetica is that it now looks generic.
It was only a matter of time before someone brought up Papyrus because Comic Sans hate is so over.
I agree that Lobster is a better font than comic sans, but both fonts have particular uses, and they both have a signature look that people recognize.
Helvetica, in my opinion, is a fantastic utility. It gets out of the way, and only those who know to look for it notice it.
Helvetica, in my opinion, is a fantastic utility. It gets out of the way, and only those who know to look for it notice it.
The genius of Helvetica is that it's styled, but subtle. It "gets out of the way," but not entirely. The common assertion about Helvetica is that it's "clean" and unstylized. But actually, its cleanliness comes from the assertion of a certain style.
On a semi-related note, I highly recommend the documentary "Helvetica," as well as the books about the development of the font. I'm not a font wonk by any means, but I do enjoy design. Anyone with even a passing interest in the subject will get a kick out of the film.
On a semi-related note, I highly recommend the documentary "Helvetica," as well as the books about the development of the font. I'm not a font wonk by any means, but I do enjoy design. Anyone with even a passing interest in the subject will get a kick out of the film.
Try Helvetica is a blog that alters photos of handmade signs from Brazil shops to use Helvetica. Some results are surprisingly good.
http://tryhelvetica.tumblr.com/
http://tryhelvetica.tumblr.com/
What's funny about this is the changes are not only the typeface. The creator is also correcting proximity, alignment, etc. I'd argue those factors make a much bigger difference in the quality of a design than typeface choice.
Lobster isn't bad, it's just overused at the moment. I might instead say that Lobster is the new Gotham, which has been overused as a header font since Obama used it in his 2008 presidential campaign (see http://flip-design.blogspot.com/2011/01/gotham-most-overused...).
Lobster is bad. Bello is bad. They're bad because they are ill-designed typefaces that leave much to be desired in the realm of readability and just the general aesthetic. They're display fonts that you can't compare to something like Gotham that can be used as display, headline or body.
Saying Gotham is overused is like saying Arial, Tahoma, Verdana are overused for web. If it is clean, visible at a distance and generic looking enough not to be annoying, it's hard to say it is overused, much like Helvetica.
Note: I say this as a designer that sees Lobster and Bello used (almost literally) hundreds of times a day in various capacities, a lot like Museo back in the day (yuck). Not sure if it is because they're Google fonts or if one startup used it and therefore every company had to use it, but in most situations they're the completely wrong type to use and when you see them, it's usually a sign of indolence/ignorance or lack of a real designer.
Saying Gotham is overused is like saying Arial, Tahoma, Verdana are overused for web. If it is clean, visible at a distance and generic looking enough not to be annoying, it's hard to say it is overused, much like Helvetica.
Note: I say this as a designer that sees Lobster and Bello used (almost literally) hundreds of times a day in various capacities, a lot like Museo back in the day (yuck). Not sure if it is because they're Google fonts or if one startup used it and therefore every company had to use it, but in most situations they're the completely wrong type to use and when you see them, it's usually a sign of indolence/ignorance or lack of a real designer.
What you're saying is that Lobster, Bello, and Museo offend your sensibilities and are used frequently. That doesn't mean they are of poor quality. Bad choices? Maybe. Bad typeface designs? No.
I think there are a couple of things at play here:
The aesthetic - as art, tastes are subjective (and there is no accounting for them), there's basically stuff you like and stuff you don't like. Right or wrong, for many people, liking and not liking translates to "good" and "bad". For example, "Comic Sans is bad because it's ugly".
The craft - the technical parts (i.e., kerning, spacing, scaling) are much more objective and have more to do with quality, so it's easier to classify stuff as good or bad. For example, "Comic Sans is bad because its kerning is broken".
I usually ignore aesthetic commentary - everyone's different. Some people like the way Comic Sans looks, and that's OK.
On the other hand, I do think criticisms on the craftsmanship are valuable, especially as a non-designer.
The aesthetic - as art, tastes are subjective (and there is no accounting for them), there's basically stuff you like and stuff you don't like. Right or wrong, for many people, liking and not liking translates to "good" and "bad". For example, "Comic Sans is bad because it's ugly".
The craft - the technical parts (i.e., kerning, spacing, scaling) are much more objective and have more to do with quality, so it's easier to classify stuff as good or bad. For example, "Comic Sans is bad because its kerning is broken".
I usually ignore aesthetic commentary - everyone's different. Some people like the way Comic Sans looks, and that's OK.
On the other hand, I do think criticisms on the craftsmanship are valuable, especially as a non-designer.
Everything's subjective to a point, but when it doesn't scale and people are using them for tiny app logos and subheadings, sensibility has nothing to do with it. Not to mention these fonts are generally used in conjunction with some pretty terrible layer or CSS effects.
Agreed--in many of these cases, people need education about how to properly use display faces.
I really don't understand this rant. Lobster is a title font, not a body font. Also unlike Comic Sans, it's actually pretty nice. The argument seems to be that Lobster is "overplayed" which is not only a snobbish, whiny thing to say but completely ignores the fact that Helvetica, Times New Roman, Arial, Georgia, etc. are used much more often. In fact you wouldn't notice Lobster at all except that it replaces the Arial you're used to seeing.
Ouch :)
My point is largely that Lobster has a much more defined and recognizable look than classic "Sans" fonts like Arial and Helvetica and "Serif" fonts like Times and Georgia.
The look is recognizable enough that it evokes comparison to other sites, which you may want to consider. It can also break down the fourth wall between your site and it's viewers if they recognize the font. They go "oh, that's lobster, one of google's free fonts" instead of "nice logo" which, again might not be what you're after.
My point is largely that Lobster has a much more defined and recognizable look than classic "Sans" fonts like Arial and Helvetica and "Serif" fonts like Times and Georgia.
The look is recognizable enough that it evokes comparison to other sites, which you may want to consider. It can also break down the fourth wall between your site and it's viewers if they recognize the font. They go "oh, that's lobster, one of google's free fonts" instead of "nice logo" which, again might not be what you're after.
Professional designers can spot Gotham instantly, and will make fun of you for using it in a logotype. The relevance of that to a web app developer is zero.
Lobster may be an overused font of the moment, but it doesn't have the pedigree of Comic Sans. Not even close.
Once Lobster has shown up consistently on PTA meeting itineraries, junior high pep-rally announcements and yard-sale flyers for about 15 years then maybe that font will be able to compare itself to Comic Sans.
Once Lobster has shown up consistently on PTA meeting itineraries, junior high pep-rally announcements and yard-sale flyers for about 15 years then maybe that font will be able to compare itself to Comic Sans.
I'll throw in my two cents on the "Lobster is the new... XYZ" by chucking out Papyrus. They are both highly-stylized fonts that are fine on their own merits but highly overrused within a certain niche (Papyrus for anything supposedly 'holistic', Lobster for anything supposedly 'startup').
Now we just need an "Avatar"-sized hugely commercial startup to use Lobster to finally run it into the ground.
Now we just need an "Avatar"-sized hugely commercial startup to use Lobster to finally run it into the ground.
You mentioned Avatar, which chose Papyrus, narrowly missing Trajan the movie font -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t87QKdOJNv8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t87QKdOJNv8
I'd compare Lobster more to Papyrus (http://www.papyruswatch.com) and Copperplate (http://ihatecopperplate.blogspot.com/) rather than Comic Sans.
... said the company with the awful trying-to-be-hip design.
Wow, I'm no expert but you're right. That header image is rather fugly.
Comic Serif: http://idsgn.org/posts/comic-sans-comic-serif/
Nothing beats 'I hate comic sans': http://www.dafont.com/i-hate-comic-sans.font
We will look back at our designs and sites years from now and go... "What happened to 90% of those sites?" :)
http://www.killersites.com/killerSites/
And yet, in its time, this was the shit.
Let's pour one out for the single-pixel GIF ...
And yet, in its time, this was the shit.
Let's pour one out for the single-pixel GIF ...
Not to mention 'blockquote' for horizontal padding and hundred other dirty little tricks.
I couldn't help noticing, though, that the page loaded wicked fast. Can't say I would mind it if more of the web was still that efficient.
I couldn't help noticing, though, that the page loaded wicked fast. Can't say I would mind it if more of the web was still that efficient.
If anything, Lobster is the new FF Dax. Dax and its siblings were the popular startup branding typefaces a few years back.
And, Comic Sans is not a terrible typeface. It's just terrible for almost every application, except for comic book lettering.
Still, I fail to see why this is a problem. Design trends happen.
And, Comic Sans is not a terrible typeface. It's just terrible for almost every application, except for comic book lettering.
Still, I fail to see why this is a problem. Design trends happen.
Lobster is a nice, versatile, _trendy_ typeface. What's wrong with that?
Nothing at all, and there was nothing wrong with Comic Sans either. However it drives my friends who aspire to be designers into frothing fits of rage.
It was explained to me this way, "Chuck lets say that bubble sorts and bloom filters were these versatile algorithms that worked really well on a few things, but a bunch of cut-n-paste programmers started using them for every program they wrote, hello world with a bubble sort and a bloom filter, a temperature monitor with a bubble sort and a bloom filter, a file system with a bubble sort and a bloom filter, wouldn't it drive you NUTS?"
And I have to admit when I'm being honest with myself that folks who program 'cook book' style (which is to say they re-use code that kinda works and then bodge it into shape with a hack or two) do rub me the wrong way.
Apparently this is how designers feel about things like Comic Sans and the four box table layout and the any number of things that people do to put together web sites that the creator enjoys, but are not actually designed.
It was explained to me this way, "Chuck lets say that bubble sorts and bloom filters were these versatile algorithms that worked really well on a few things, but a bunch of cut-n-paste programmers started using them for every program they wrote, hello world with a bubble sort and a bloom filter, a temperature monitor with a bubble sort and a bloom filter, a file system with a bubble sort and a bloom filter, wouldn't it drive you NUTS?"
And I have to admit when I'm being honest with myself that folks who program 'cook book' style (which is to say they re-use code that kinda works and then bodge it into shape with a hack or two) do rub me the wrong way.
Apparently this is how designers feel about things like Comic Sans and the four box table layout and the any number of things that people do to put together web sites that the creator enjoys, but are not actually designed.
I think the larger point there is "does any of that matter"? I don't think it does. It's possible to be a lazy programmer and a lazy designer and still be entirely successful. Understandable that it irritates programmers and designers, but it's a fact of life.
I completely agree :) There's a portion of this that is tongue in cheek, and I doubt we will actually change Framey (our own site which uses Lobster in the logo) at this point.
Really, I just wanted to raise it in people's consciousness so it's a consideration when you're choosing the font for your next project.
I think we're right at the threshold where powerusers (and tech blog authors) will start seeing Lobster and think "Ah. generic startup font. This was thrown together in a weekend."
Sometimes that's just fine, but it's not always what you want your wordmark to communicate.
Really, I just wanted to raise it in people's consciousness so it's a consideration when you're choosing the font for your next project.
I think we're right at the threshold where powerusers (and tech blog authors) will start seeing Lobster and think "Ah. generic startup font. This was thrown together in a weekend."
Sometimes that's just fine, but it's not always what you want your wordmark to communicate.
Exactly - your customers might care if you use Comic Sans ('ew, why is this site so ugly?') but probably won't if you use Lobster or, say, Twitter Bootstrap well - even if you might be lazy.
I've seen formal government documents signed by ministers that were printed in Comic Sans.
Sure, there's a place for Comic Sans, but it's used in so many places that it shouldn't be.
Sure, there's a place for Comic Sans, but it's used in so many places that it shouldn't be.
Indeed - it is a very nice font. Unfortunately we're ALL using it in our projects, and it can make projects look lazy or "me too".
It's sad, because it was a very nice font, but it's just overused.
It's sad, because it was a very nice font, but it's just overused.
Nice fonts should be used as often as possible. I would be happy if more people used Lobster, because it's nice!
Comic Sans makes me remember I have a slight astigmatism.
Lobster makes me want to buy some soup, or order a la carte. Well, at least I don't cringe looking at it.
Lobster makes me want to buy some soup, or order a la carte. Well, at least I don't cringe looking at it.
The problem is its overuse, not it's qualities as a typeface. Comic Sans is not a bad typeface, it was merely overused and became a cliche. Lobster is well down that same path.
Comic Sans is a terrible typeface. Frequency of use has nothing to do with it.
Lobster is a decent font however it's way, way overused. Just please for the love of god don't use it in your logo (Some YC companies have) at best it's going to look generic.
In Vancouver (and most likely everywhere else) Bleeding Cowboy is smothering 'trendy' salons and other related signage.
Maybe it's time we have graphic design as a licensed trade.
Maybe it's time we have graphic design as a licensed trade.
Pacifico is the new Lobster. http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/pacifico
I'm so glad someone pointed this out, but it's horribly ironic that the design of the blog and the header on there are god-awful.
Fuuuu now I'm seeing it everywhere. Thanks...
It is a lot nicer to read than comic sans.
Title should read: Dear Codecademy, Lobster is the new Comic Sans.
I spent a minute before clicking that link trying to figure out wtf it meant.
All I could think of was how serving lobster to your employees is considered the new comic sans. An interesting world to think about, if I may say so.
All I could think of was how serving lobster to your employees is considered the new comic sans. An interesting world to think about, if I may say so.
[deleted]
http://www.kadavy.net/blog/posts/why-you-hate-comic-sans/
By this author's logic we should all stop using Helvetica, too - it's way too common.