Comments on: Are Tiny Pixel Fonts Dead?

By: Andrew Faulkner

Andrew Faulkner — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:25:28 +0000

I personally don’t like smaller pixel fonts due to the their lack of readibility. I do still think they have a place on some tech orientated sites though.

I’d love to see some examples of good pixel font usage.

By: Johan

Johan — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:10:53 +0000

Pixelfonts are still used a lot on footers, eg copyright notices.

And flash websites, but maybe less than used to be. The technology look it was. Picelfonts = digital look.

By: Johan

Johan — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:30:48 +0000

Also … small print in *print media* where also thew copyright notices and disclaimers. They where obligated to be part of eg a poster, very small print and pretty unreadable. This would be used for web too , therefore you see it a lot in footers.

By: Johan

Johan — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:32:54 +0000

Also also … pixel fonts have a use for icons when accompanied with text.

By: Johan

Johan — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:36:59 +0000

Citing from (http://blog.fawny.org/2005/03/15/sxsw2005-15a/)

Question from woman in audience: Is teeny-tiny pixel text a trend or a long-term solution? They’re tuned for today’s large pixels compared to laser printers. Josh suspects it’s a trend, “a local hack, if you will. It’s certainly not a bad thing, and it’s resulted in some terrific typography, but pixels are eventually going to get so small that you can’t have a single-pixel stem.” You may have different tiers of information, like footnotes (at several millimetres) and headlines (much larger). Mike says you can design an outline font that looks like a pixel font, but pixel fonts “will always remind you of the ’90s… and is always going to remind us where we come from.”

By: Andrew Faulkner

Andrew Faulkner — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:15:20 +0000

Thanks for all your opinions Johan. Would you (or anyone) consider using pixel fonts now?

By: Matthias

Matthias — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:50:08 +0000

There still is a need for it. Particularly for small screens new fonts are still developed. Look:

http://www.schroeder-wendt.com/02_research-development/03_pixel-fonts/index.html

By: P.J. Onori

P.J. Onori — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:30:57 +0000

I think a lot of it has to do with the amazing rise in screen resolutions in the past couple years. A pixel font at 800×600 or even 1024×768 is relatively easy to read - at 1600×1200 hundred it usually isn’t. 800×600 accounts for only 3% of my traffic - I have even begun re-hauling the site to fit for a 1024×768 dimension because of it.

I still think pixel fonts have their place - we just need to be very cautious before we do it. I think one thing that would help bring it back is if we optimized them for the 12-pixel size. I think people would be astounded at how much more often they would be used.

By: Andrew Faulkner

Andrew Faulkner — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:54:45 +0000

P.J.

Do you think that a pixel-font could work i a relative font size world, though?

By: Andrew Wang

Andrew Wang — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:57:25 +0000

I used pixel fonts on my latest design project (Mint, if you want to know), and it looked fine on my 1280×1024. It definitely has a clean futuristic look, which I like much better than the pastel gradients of Web 2.0.

The only annoying thing is having to make them all images..two images if you want a hover.

By: Stephan Tual - Terapad.com

Stephan Tual - Terapad.com — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:29:03 +0000

Ah yes, pixel fonts… I used to love those, and I used them on quite a few projects. Unfortunately, they feel a bit ‘passé’ now - you know, just like the rounded corners, pastel gradients and oversized fonts of today will in a few years.

File these in the same folder as isometric art, it was great while it last and I’m fond of those memories, but I wouldn’t use them on a project today.

PS: they are great for coding though.

By: P.J. Onori

P.J. Onori — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 05:44:46 +0000

Andrew -

It’s an interesting question and honestly, I don’t know. While I am a large defender of relative font/layout size design, I think we can all agree that 95% to 99% of the audience views a layout’s copy at its default size. Common wisdom has stated for generations (which studies have later proven) that 12pt is an optimal typographic size for reading. I personally would not mind seeing a pixel font, if used correctly, both visually and in terms of readability.

Also, hopefully in the near future we will not be bound by what fonts the viewer has on their specific computer. This alone would open up the doors to so many more possibilities.

By: Matt Davies

Matt Davies — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 13:03:04 +0000

Size is not the only thing that matters. Leading (space between lines) is extremely important in regards to readability. Also a good knowledge of how paragraph spacing should be used is important. See http://www.attitudedesign.co.uk/journal/?p=44 - I hope it might help.

By: Maryann

Maryann — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 03:06:24 +0000

Not as text. Never as text. But in graphics, pixel fonts are invaluable and indespensable. Icons, avatars, small banners. Any tiny graphic requires a good pixel font that can be used at 6pt. For this reason, I have more pixel fonts than any other kind on my computers.

By: Howard Gibson

Howard Gibson — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:52:22 +0000

Tiny fonts are hard to read. I would think that the primary purpose of a hard to read font would be when you write stuff you do not want the anybody to read. Proposing an act of Arab terrorism perhaps. Nasty insults directed at the webmaster? The whole point of putting text up on the web is to get people to read it.