Link got stripped.

Description and samples of changes to Segoe UI

Thanks guys. Link reinstated.

I like the old numbers better.

I like the old numbers better.

They have their charm. But from an UI point of view, I think the changes have their reason.

BTW yours truly is proud to have consulted extensively on the Armenian component.

hhp

Both old and new glyphs are available as stylistic alternates. I don't yet have access to the font, but have I read that the new glyphs are available as stylistic set 20 (ss20).

MS has improved the figures, but apparently Adrian Frutiger got the alphabetic characters just right.

MS has improved the figures, but apparently Adrian Frutiger got the alphabetic characters just right.

As shown by the reversion in the I and Q to something far nearer to Frutiger's model. Nick, do you think that Segoe is a ripoff then?

Riccardo, interested in why you think that 2 could be better than the original. Also interested in why the angle of the 4 could possibly be better concave versus convex or straight.

N

I think the new |2| has more balanced counters.
As for the |4|, I’m not sure, but I suspect it’s slightly concave so not to appear optically convex.

…Segoe is a ripoff…

The correct design term is “swiped”.

I think the new |2| has more balanced counters.
As for the |4|, I’m not sure, but I suspect it’s slightly concave so not to appear optically convex.

The counters in the /2/ might be more balanced but not many people would even call the bottom shape a counter or try to balance it. To me it looks grim. As for the /4/, I would have thought one wanted to open the counter up, not close it. I'm really not getting that at all, it certainly isn't convincing me it's straight (or not convex), that's crazy. Plus it looks so much wider than the other numerals :/

Nick, how many years must pass before one can "swipe" a design? Five, fifty, five hundred, never? Who decides? Why is a revival so much more acceptable? Isn't a revival a similar excuse for lack of originality/creativity masquerading as being the saviour of a design that would otherwise have been lost to us through the ruthlessness of natural selection? Maybe there's nothing new under the sun? After all, it's not like Segoe UI is traced from Frutiger.

I quite like Segoe UI although the places I dislike it tend to be where it deviates from Frutiger the most so maybe it's not Segoe UI that I like at all! As for the morals of its existence, I'll happily let others be the judge.

The original numbers and forms for Q and I are still included under Stylistic Set 01.

Let's be real about how many people actually use stylistic sets, impressive functionality though they represent.

Sadly, Nick is dead on. In fact if people can save a few bucks on a non-"Pro" version of a font, they will.

hhp

Well, yes, however the original forms are there for developers who want them, as well as a courtesy to those who may have decided to use a UI font for non-UI purpose. This is first and foremost a UI font for MS products and everything keys off of that

Si

So, was the 2 a change to disambiguate it from the Z?

David, no, all the changes to the numbers were to disambiguate them from nice looking numbers! That the 2 looks less like a Z was purely coincidental :)