RSSNew UI Font Coming to Vista, Office 12
By Ed Oswald | Published November 23, 2005, 11:27 AM
With the release of a new user interface in Windows Vista and Office 12, Microsoft will also update the font that both products use for the first time in eight years. The company says the new font is designed to take advantage of ClearType, and is more modern than its predecessors.
Dubbed "Segoe UI," the font is more humanistic and less computer-like than it's predecessor, Tahoma. Microsoft also relied on a decade of research from its Typography unit on making fonts easier to read and scan on screen.
Segoe has taken two years to develop, according to Microsoft. Office 12 will primarily use the 8pt. version of the font, while Windows itself will use the 9pt. size.
"It's amazing to me how much work goes into making a great font --sometimes we send back feedback just about a certain glyph ('g' looks weird in this specific situation) and they tweak the hinting just a bit to improve it," Microsoft User Experience team member Jensen Harris wrote in his Web log last week.
Microsoft's history with designing fonts specifically to complement the user interface has been a rather short one. With Office and Windows 95, the company introduced the MS Sans Serif font. The font was one of the first to look good, although a bit bland, at smaller sizes.
With Office 97 and Windows 98, the font team took a step forward in readability with the introduction of the Tahoma font. The font was specifically engineered to be easily read at smaller sizes.
"Tahoma 8pt. is still used as the main font in Office 2003 today; it has also been used as the main UI font in Windows since Windows 98," Harris wrote.
Microsoft hopes that with Segoe UI, the company will again be able to take another step forward in both readability and comfort in viewing.
However, not everyone's singing Microsoft's praises. One commenter to Harris' Web log even accused the font team of plagiarizing another font, called Frutiger.
"Segoe UI looks exactly like Frutiger (with the addition of round dots, as in another Frutiger ripoff called Myriad). This is going to be just another repeat of the Arial and Book Antiqua incidents. Can't your designers try to come up with something original?" a user named Adam wrote.
But another commenter downplayed such claims. "Of course Segoe UI is going to look a lot like any other sans-serif, variable-width, Clear-Type font," a user by the name of Kawigi responded. "The patent on letters ran out a long time ago."
biiiig news, NOT! Who cares about this?
Score: 0
|Perhaps you do not care. I care and many others do.
Score: 0
|I hope that this is the moment for Microsoft to finally fix a "bug" that lives in all windows versions since I remember... font/position inconsistancy: there are a lot of places in system dialogs that use diferrent fonts (ms sans serif, microsoft sans serif, tahoma...) why? is that a software quality issue?
the same thing comes with dialogs with several tabs and controls that are slightly moved, (office 2003, options dialog, and so on...)
it is clear that theese mistakes pass the quality checking (if any?) and that implies that there is many moooore mistakes tha are not so obvious.
shame on microsoft for such inconsistancies, but the fonts they produce for ui are very readable, clear and readable.
Score: 0
|How is this news? A TTF of Segoe UI has been floating around the internet for awhile now.
Score: 0
|All fine and dandy but how many glyphs?
Score: 0
|I'm not sure what you're asking, but there are more details about the font on the Web Log link mentioned in the article if you're interested in learning more.
Score: 0
|a glyph is a character, for example MS's unicode version of Ariel has 51,180 glyphs (supporting most of CJK) and ships with Office 2k and up.
Score: 0
|A much better replacement would have been Frutiger Next, which is not only the most attractive and economical, but easiest to read in both its smallest and largest point sizes, and can be used for anything from office communications to multimedia to complex printed materials.
Score: 0
|For anyone who whines about Segoe looking like Frutiger, keep in mind the following:
A) Both fonts look remarkably similar to ARIAL (Pleasantly so, I might add) and Arial has been around a very long time.
B) Courtesy of copyright/licensing matters, it is in their interest to create their own.
Score: 0
|I hope the final version of Segoe UI isn't the same as the copy I've got on my system (came packaged with a vista-like skin I believe). It looks horrible on my CRT (21" Trinitron)... some of the letters butt up against each other in ways that look bad. I hope what I've got, then, is a clone or preliminary version, and that the final will look better!
Score: 0
|Two years to design a font???
Score: 0
|"Two years to design a font???"
Yeah, ~that's~ Microsoft ! And, after two years, it STILL might not be ready by late-2006.
The Computer Rodent
Score: 0
|Remember the old Ford commercial? ... "Ford, where quality is job 1" ...
Y'all have heard the adaption of that haven't you?
"Microsoft, where quality is job 1.1"
Score: 0
|Do you know anything about how quality fonts are done? It takes *quite* some time.
You can't compare the fonts on, say, Adobe Font Folio with the ones you'll find on some freeware fonts website - done in a couple of hours.
It's not just about jotting down the alphabet and put it in a font you know..
Score: 0
|Try making a unicode font with CJK support (5000+ glyphs), hinting, and kerning. You'll be lucky if it only takes two years. Even without the CJK support it is a nontrivial endeavor.
Daniel Leuck
http://www.ikayzo.com
http://www.javaui.net
Score: 0
|Yep, two years. Try making one yourself and then marketing and selling it. Betcha can't do it. Think about it.
Score: 0
|Font is VERY important to me.
The ONE THING I hate about Linux is its ability to render fonts...(yes, I know about bitstream and MS tahoma on linux. Bitstream gives me a headache and tahoma on linux just isn't the same as it is on Windows)
I applaud MS for research in Typography.
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/default.mspx
Score: 0
|I 100% agree with you, fonts were one of the reasons I left linux and their undying struggle to make linux fonts at least readable...
Currently I am developing on 2k3, which has the most updated fonts in the system (few of it are newer version than their XP counterparts), and the fonts looks AMAZING, simply stunning. I am not using clear-type as I am on Trinitron, just the basic smooth method.
Great fonts and graphical API is becomming more and more inmpornant in future and interacting with computer(using screen wisely), in both the MS is becoming the KING. Eager to eat AVALON :-)
Archaic(as I said hundred times) X Window System architecture(no matter what implementation) simply can't stand there, so Linux or PCBSD or any other *nix system using say Xfree is 'out' on DeskTop use. They were desingned to be Text so let them stay[flame].
And nail me, I think the fonts on win2k3 are one step better that on MAC OSX, even if MAC is the FATHER of fonts with they relationship to Adobe. I gennerally love MACs, OSX is the only Unix system a person can use on Desktop, because of FONTS! If you think about it for a while, you see gazillion of letters thus fonts each and every day, so make them look good!
Score: 0
|I believe the problem you both face would be your prolonged use with MS and thus, adaptation to crappy fonts. The FACT, is that fonts on *nix based systems are what people who actually understand fonts call "Anti-Aliased". Read this: http://www.schorsch.com/.../glossary/aliasing.html
So bascially, what I'm trying to say is that although your OPINION of what fonts look better may be fine, you're using your opinion as bias to say that one looks better then the other.
Score: 0
|I wasn't talking about aliasing, about using fonts WITHOUT it, just some basic smooth method. Load XP system an see for yourself. You can't have aliased/clear-typed fonts on Trinitron monitor, see for yourself why. And MS never told it is *aliasing* fonts, he defined clear-typing it, specifically for LCD monitors, as there is backgrond RGB computing present which suits LCD transistors.
http://www.microsoft.com...aphy/ClearTypeInfo.mspx
And to *nix systems, they CAN have alias of fonts, but it destroys whole desktop when looking on my monitor, or I need at least 1600*1200 to have SOME space on monitor with them. And generally speaking, w/o alias linux font is crap, if my oppinion matters or not. And if they are aliased, they are looking kind of funny.
You obviously haven't seen MS fonts on 1 monitor and Linux fonts on other close next to it in a long time..I had. It was a joke.
Score: 0
|I have XP installed on my desktop and SuSE 10 on my laptop. They sit right beside eachother every day, and I don't really see any major difference. The fonts on Linux look fine to me, though I will say Segoe looks well done.
Score: 0
|lol ummmm why is this important? when office 2003 still not fixed lol ...i have had this prob since sp2:
http://support.microsoft...cid=kb;en-us;886299#toc
sad..
Score: 0
|STOP POSTING THIS AS A RESPONSE TO EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE ABOUT MICROSOFT DEVELOPING SOMETHING!
My God read the explanation:
"The ActiveX controls were disabled in Windows XP SP2 because they pose a
***********security risk************.
There is no supported workaround to enable this functionality in Microsoft Office."
Score: 0
|Dude. How many times are you going to post that link?
Was your uncle run over by an MS employee or something?
Score: 0
|One thing that really sucks about Office is the amount of unnecessary widgets they use that are not consistent with the rest of the OS. Why can't they just use the general toolbar, menu and other OS widgets? Same goes for fonts. Why not use the system font that the rest of the OS uses?
Score: 0
|Microsoft Changes a font, makes headlines.
Score: 0
|It's Microsoft, lol... duh! Besides, font changes can be a big deal since they affect the user experience.
Score: 0
|I like the fonts current Windows (XP) uses.
Score: 0
|Do my eyes deceive me? You LIKE something about a MICROSOFT product? (kidding)
Score: 0
|If I judge only by his previous posts and comments, I think it's less about what he likes now so much as what he doesn't like coming in Vista, lol.
Score: 0
|I'm not a M$ fan, not by a long shot, but Windows XP's interface is my favourite ^_^.
I often find other OSes (Gnome, KDE, finder) as harder to use then explorer... and Gnome as sometimes harder to read...
Which is why I'd prefer the M$ interface to stay the same, including fonts.
Score: 0
|I don't think anyone on BetaNews would mistake you to be a fan of Microsoft... especially since your typical opinions and advice for Microsoft users gets you flamed repeatedly.
Score: 0
|ClearType? The fonts in Office 12 beta 1 look smudgy - kind of like on the Mac. In fact the whole new office suite is a whole lot like Office 2004 for Mac - including the awful lag between typing and seeing the letters appear on the screen.
Clear-Type works with large fonts. With small fonts like 8 or 9 point it just looks blurry.
It seems like more change for the sake of change to me. I'll be sticking with Office 2003 for a while.
Score: 0
|I get that issue a lot too on CRT style monitors. ClearType was largely designed for LCD's. I would recommend you play around with your monitor settings to tweak it, as well as use the ClearType Tuning Wizard available on the Windows XP Downloads page... those two adjustments should fix things for you.
Score: 0
|As I understand it, ClearType utilizes "subpixel" rendering by using single R, G, or B elements of adjacent pixels to create smoother anti-aliasing. Of course, this is only possible with LCD's.
Anti-aliasing in general is another aspect of Microsoft's font rendering technology. I don't know whether ClearType implements new and better AA techniques beyond the subpixel stuff.
Of course, it should be possible to tweak and optimize a font to render best with ClearType when you understand exactly how it works.
I wonder if MS will make the new font available to those of us who aren't using Vista or the new Office. Of course, doing so obviates one of the ever-shrinking number of reasons to upgrade Microsoft software, so I won't hold my breath.
Score: 0
|Well Office 12 will work with XP and Vista, so we'll get the fonts that way, I'm sure. Whether the new fonts will be available through other, legitimate means (ie from Microsoft) I have no idea.
Score: 0
|Well seeing how the only major improvement I've heard of in Office 12 is PDF support, it's not like this is a necessary upgrade. Anyone can install the free/open source PDFCreator printer driver and create all the PDFs their heart desires. I'll agree it would be more difficult to edit them, but the clipboard would probably aid in that instance.
HTTP://www.sf.net/projects/pdfcreator
Cheers,
Christian Blackburn
PS. I just saved you 100 to 400 dollars :)
Score: 0
|Wait until you see the real thing before you post. I'm using Segoe at 8pt and looks perfectly sharp, not blurry at all :) Even in Office 12 Beta 1.
Score: 0
|I have seen Office 12 beta 1, that's precisely why I'm commenting.
The fonts are anti-aliased. On small fonts that means blurry. If you have been able to turn off 'UNClear-Type' to make things sharp, like they are in Office 2003, please let us know. Thanks.
Score: 0
|You don't turn off Cleartype for Office only, that's an OS setting.
I see a very blurry Segoe font in Office 12 Beta 1 when cleartype is not enabled, if I enabled it, it looks crisp, even better than cleartype with Tahoma. On the other hand Anti-aliasing techniques apply to full-pixel while cleartype applies to sub-pixel, therefore they are not exactly the same.
Score: 0
|Thanks, I will definitely try this. I still wish they would leave the fonts alone. I think the smudginess of small fonts is a real drawback with Mac OS X and I really think Office 12 is very much a development of that suite. It is beta though, and hopefully they will improve things - like I can't seem to change and individual table cell's padding, as the changes revert to the entire table. Though that's a different discussion.
Score: 0
|You could consider purchasing a nice 17" LCD monitor and setting the resolution to a respectable 1280*1024... ClearType (and pretty much everything else for that matter) look gorgeous that way! :) Besides, the monitors of that size have dropped to $250 or less in many places.
Score: 0
|Just delete fonts you don't like and Office 12 will lokk like Office 2003.
Close office app, go to Cotrol panel, Fonts, and delete font Segoe UI. Also you need delete another font word is using as default font for documents (already deleted and forget name:) )
Score: 0
|Both XP Standard and XP ClearType have to keep the letter widths and positions the same as without the visual enhancement.
So, whilst ClearType does use the RGB pixels of a LCD screen, it doesn't use sub-pixel positioning.
Vista introduces both horizontal and vertical sub-pixel poistioning to Windows for the first time.
Score: 0
|Why on Earth would I delete fonts when I could just go to Display Options and customize my settings to use the fonts I want? That's what I do now since I prefer the smoothness of Arial over Tahoma.
Score: 0
|