I think it's one of those things where you don't "notice" it, but where it nevertheless has an impact. Sort of like someone might not "notice" the fact that there's more butter or salt in restaurant food, but it's subjectively better than the same meal they cooked at home.
For a more directly relevant example, companies frequently A/B test changes to a UI to see which ones people like better. The specifics of those changes would be pretty marginal if you didn't know what it looked like before (like if you're a new user, you wouldn't notice if the notification was red versus purple, or what the wording in the menu is). Despite this, there are some sites that just "feel" better in a way that you can't really describe.
All of this is a long-winded way of saying that I can't tell if I'm looking at Arial, Helvetica, or this Nebula Sans font unless they were side by side (and even then I'd just be saying they're different, not identifying them by name). But I think the site would feel a lot less modern if it were written in Times New Roman. I think you'd notice if it were too hard to read when small, and I think if it looked "bad," you'd at least subconsciously notice that.
Sure, I'd happily take a more readable, less eye strain, less ink consuming, whatever, font. What is announced here, however, is "A versatile, modern, humanist sans-serif with a neutral aesthetic, designed for legibility in both digital and print applications" which is just designer speak for NIH.
You’re ignoring half of the argument. I have given some examples of branding and some examples of real use. “Legibility, and understanding” aren’t branding. “Dyslexia” isn’t branding. Typography is a branch of graphic design with a lot of study behind it. Just like subtle uses of colour and element positioning can change how you interact with, perceive, and feel about an interface, so can typefaces.
Again, just because you’re unable to notice how exactly you’re being affected does not mean you aren’t. You also don’t notice all the ways you’re affected by advertising, but they still work on you.
Yes, of course not every single subtle change to a font makes a huge impact. Just like a single subtle change to a colour’s hue doesn’t. But pronounced changes do, even when you’re unable to put your finger on it.
Sure, readability is a quality of a font, and older fonts can be worse at it. But it's hard to use just readability to justify yet another designer pushing yet another font as a "A versatile, modern, humanist sans-serif with a neutral aesthetic, designed for legibility in both digital and print applications" by just that.
If it were a non-fashion criteria, surely we'd be hitting a local maximum on readability.
I don't need or want my everyday use font to "affect" me, or to "make impact" -- that's the branding world, again, and not aligned with readability.
> Ok, it is a font alright. To me, it looks exactly as all the other fonts I have on my OS already, but I guess that's just how it is if you are not in the font bubble.
So, yeah. Grandparent tried to justify this new whatever by saying lots of words, none of which really seemed to matter outside of the font bubble.
Except differences run much deeper than that. For example, the amount of characters supported. Many fonts don’t support anything other than ASCII, some support both Latin and CJK. Ligatures, how many weights it has, there are a myriad of technical reasons to pick one font over another.
There is no perfect font, just like there is no perfect framework. You pick what suits you or makes sense for your project. Sometimes you don’t understand your requirements until you try to use something.
> I don't need or want my everyday use font to "affect" me, or to "make impact"
And being aware of the details is the best way to avoid that.
The fonts we actually use are interchangeable, and people outside the font bubble won't even notice the differences.