Favourite music in 2024

I also have three honourable mentions, two of which were released at the end of 2023 (though I listened to them mostly in 2024) and one of which is an EP:

Songs

These are the songs that got stuck in my head most often and for the longest time in 2024 (in alphabetical order):

Shout-outs

Production

I can’t remember the last time I listened to a song on a constant loop as much as I listened to St. Vincent Sweetest Fruit. The layers, the soundscapes, the loops – there’s so much to unpack, enjoy on its own, and then repack and enjoy as a whole in this song. Phenomenal. (Here’s a production breakdown of that song, in case you’re interested.)

I love that Dua Lipa released two versions of her Radical Optimism album: a regular version and an extended version. It’s great having access to longer, more groovy, more atmospheric, and less radio-conforming versions of all her latest songs. (Reminds me of Peter Gabriel releasing two versions of his i/o album in 2023 – a Bright-Side Mix and Dark-Side Mix – each produced by a different mixer.)

Live versions

Half of my favourite albums this year here live albums, which is great to see. I love a good live album.

Chris Stapleton and Dua Lipa performed a live duet of Stapleton’s Think I’m In Love With You that at the 59th Academy Of Country Music Awards. I also love a good live duet :)

My favourite typefaces (December 2024)

[NOTE: For the most up-to-date version of my favourites list, see my ‘Typography’ page.]

It’s December 2024 and, of the typefaces I currently have a licence to, these are my favourites. (Like last time, I’m just going to list them, not talk about them.)

I’ve grouped the typefaces based on their level of formality, as discussed in my ‘How I think about typefaces’ post. And I’ve sorted them in decreasing order of versatility.

Also, I’ve only included typefaces that work well for body text or occasional text (ie short blocks). This list would be far too long if I listed all the heading and display typefaces I liked!

Serif typefaces

Sans serif typefaces

Slab serif typefaces

Monospace typefaces

Typeface wish list (realistic)

The way I acquire typefaces is by maintaining an up-to-date list of the realistically affordable typefaces I want to buy next. If any of those typefaces go on sale, I snap them up. But if there are some that never go on sale, I wait till I get my annual bonus from work and then buy one or two families every year.

Since I maintain that up-to-date wish list of future favourite typefaces (at least the more affordable ones), I figured I’d include that here as well :)

Do you have any favourite or go-to typefaces? What are they? I’d love to know!

How I think about typefaces

I want to talk about my current favourite typefaces. But in order to do that, I need to explain how I categorise typefaces. So here goes.

When trying to figure out which typeface(s) to use in a project, the first aspect I consider is the level of formality the body text typeface needs to have. Everything else flows from there.

Levels of formality

I put typefaces into formality categories based on the vibe I get from them. And because the formality level of ‘formal’ can be context dependent, I split that into subcategories.

This gives me six “vibe” categories which are, from least to most formal:

  • Friendly

  • Casual

  • Chill (formal)

  • Neutral (formal)

  • Stylish (formal)

  • Elegant

If this sound a bit like I’m describing fashion, then you’re correct. I think of these formality levels as either dress codes or as the type of pen I’d use to achieve that level of formality.

Applying this to typography, here’s how I’d sort some familiar typefaces into these categories.

No categorisation system is perfect, of course, and many typefaces are versatile enough to be placed in more than one category [1]. But my objective here isn’t to create the perfect categorisation, it’s to give me the language I can use to compare the vibes of two similar typefaces.

Happily, this formality-level approach is surprisingly practical when put into action. For example, I can say things like, “nah, that typeface has features that are too elegant for the vibe I’m trying to set in this situation” or “this typeface is on the chill side of neutral, which means it has the perfect level of friendliness while still being formal enough to use in this project”.

More than that, I can use this system as a whole to help me make typography decisions. Here’s how that works.

Start with neutral

Every time I kick off a new project, I start by considering if a neutral (formal) typeface is what I need. This is what I’d use if I didn’t want the typeface to be noticed. Or if it was noticed, I’d want people to assess it as neutral. Think Times New Roman, Helvetica, or Arial. Or Novela and Neue Montreal, like in the example below. If we were still in the days of handwriting everything, the vibe I’d be going for is text written with a fountain pen.

If neutral isn’t what I’m after, then I can go in two directions: warmer and friendlier or cooler and more elegant.

If I’m going in the cooler direction, then I’ll look for a stylish (formal) typeface. Something like Sabon or Caslon (both of which you see in a lot of printed books) or Futura. Or Writer and Cooper Hewitt, like in the example below. The vibe here is slightly more fancy/artsy, like text written with a fine felt-tip pen.

If that’s not enough, I’ll look for an elegant typeface. Think Baskerville, Palatino, or Avenir. Or Stempel Garamond and Noah, like in the example below. The vibe here is text written with a calligraphy pen.

But what if I want to go warmer instead?

Moving to the other side of neutral, I’ll look for a chill (formal) typeface. Think Calibri or Georgia. Or Charter and Public Sans, like in the example below. The vibe here is text written with a rollerball pen.

If that’s not enough, I’ll look for a casual typeface. Something like Century Schoolbook (which a lot of older children’s books were written in) or Work Sans. Or Vollkorn and Ideal Sans, like in the example below. The vibe here is text written with a standard ballpoint pen – though with good handwriting.

But if that’s still too formal, then I’ll look for a friendly typeface. Something like Gill Sans (the typeface used in classic, orange-and-white Penguin book covers) or Roboto Slab. Or Bariol Serif and Fira Sans, like in the example below. The vibe here is text written with a marker pen.

A real example

I went through this exact process when deciding which typeface to use in the labels of the graphics above, by the way.

I knew neutral was going to be boring (like DM Sans in the light blue box, below), but I didn’t want to go in the casual direction (like Public Sans in the orange box). I also didn’t want the labels to be too elegant (like Avenir in the dark blue box), so I settled on stylish (like Whitney in the mid blue box). And that’s why all the labels in all the graphics above and below are set in Whitney Semibold and Whitney Medium.

What next?

Now that I’ve explained my typeface categorisation, I can talk about my current favourite typefaces – which I will do so in the next post.

[1] Nudica, for example, I classify as ‘friendly’ because that’s the vibe context I tend to use it in most often. But it could just as easily be classified as ‘stylish’ if you used it in that context.  

Decision fatigue solved: what to watch next

How do you decide which movie or TV show you’re going to watch next?

Do you make lists? And if so, how do you organise those lists?

After years of trial-and-error and one-dimensional list making, I now have a solution that works exceptionally well for me. So let’s talk about it.

To get to my current solution I had to solve three problems.

1. Effort required to watch

Some media takes effort to consume, while other stuff is quick and easy to watch.

When I used to have all my movies and TV shows in a single, long list, deciding what to watch next became a chore in itself. As I went through the list, I’d need to keep track of which movies and TV shows I had the mental capacity to enjoy at the time. And because it took so long to pick something, I’d often just end up watching what was being broadcast on one of the movie channels instead – flicking through until I found something interesting enough.

I fixed this problem by grouping my next-watch items into three ‘brain power’ categories: 30%, 60%, and 90% brain. Now, based on how I’m feeling and how much effort I’m willing to expend, I can decide which of those shorter lists to look through. I also maintain separate lists for movies and TV shows, which makes the lists even shorter.

So what do those brain power categories mean?

30% brain

This is stuff that’s easy to watch – low emotional stakes, relatively straightforward plots; usually something fun and quick.

Action and comedy media tends to fall into this category, as does most YA stuff; some talk shows and panel shows too. Most reality TV doesn’t fit here though, since that to me is 10% brain media and I usually get bored watching it.

Some examples of 30% brain media that I’ve enjoyed watching recently are Obliterated, Wednesday, and FUBAR.

These shows might not be 30% brain for everyone, of course. But for someone like me who watches a lot of action and SFF (science fiction and fantasy), they all make for low-effort watching.

60% brain

This is stuff that has a bit of meat on it, but you don’t need to fully invest yourself emotionally to enjoy.

Plot-driven and character-driven action and drama media tends to fall into this category, as well as some SFF stuff with more advanced world building.

Some examples of 60% brain media that I’ve enjoyed watching recently are Reacher, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and Fallout.

90% brain

This is stuff takes a bit of effort to enjoy. You need to invest yourself mentally and emotionally, but the resulting payoff is worth it.

The things that fall into this category are advanced drama, action, and SFF. Mostly stuff that you can’t or don’t want to binge-watch.

90% brain media I’ve enjoyed recently: The Peripheral, Shōgun, and Silo.

Yay for Tumblr

This way of categorising content into how much effort it takes to consume comes from Tumblr, by the way. I can’t find the original post (it was from a long time ago), but in it the poster had said they were tired and only had the energy to watch a “30% brain” TV show that night. This method of classification stuck and is now used quite frequently on that social network.

2. Priority-sorted lists

Grouping to-watch items into separate lists doesn’t solve the problem of having to go through each list every time you want to watch a movie or start a new show. So now I prioritise my lists, with the things I want to watch first placed towards the top.

Every now and then I’ll go through each list and re-sort it, moving the items I feel like watching sooner further up the list. This usually happens after I’ve listened to a podcast episode featuring someone who talks about a movie or TV show they were involved with.

3. Search-minimising processes

Maintaining three priority-sorted, brain-power grouped lists – one set for movies and one set for TV shows – didn’t solve all my problems though. I needed to create some additional processes to make everything run smoothly.

I did that by adding three more lists:

  • Inbox: This is where all new items go if it’s not already clear which brain-power list they should be sorted into.

  • Waiting: This is where I move TV shows when I’m waiting for the next season to start.

  • Watch next: This is where I put items that, regardless of brain-power level, I want to watch as soon as possible.

Now the first place I look is the ‘watch next’ list. And as I start to clear this list, I add items from the three brain-power lists to the bottom of this one.

Great success

Screenshot from KanbanFlow

I moved fully over to this system at the end of last year and it has been working incredibly well for me. So much so that a few months ago I adopted the same approach for the books I want to read.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering which tool I use to maintain these lists, I use the free version of KanbanFlow since that has all the functionality I need.

What system do you use for deciding what you’re going to to watch or read next? I’d love to know.

My favourite typefaces (April 2024)

[NOTE: For the most up-to-date version of my favourites list, see my ‘Typography’ page.]

I’d compiled this list for myself and figured I might as well share it online, so…

It’s April 2024 and, out of the typefaces I currently have a licence for, these my favourites and the ones that I use most often.

Sans serif

A graphic titled ‘Sans serif’ with three columns of typefaces under the headings ‘used frequently’, ‘used infrequently’, and ‘used when needed’.

Used frequently in documents, presentations, and graphics: Whitney (Wikipedia), Whitney Narrow, Fact (MyFonts), Ideal Sans, Avenir Next LT (Microsoft, Wikipedia), Source Sans 3 (GitHub, Wikipedia)

Used infrequently for specific purposes (eg headings, graphics, presentations) and for specific applications (eg Verdana for email): Verdana (Microsoft, Wikipedia), Public Sans (GitHub, Wikipedia), Fira Sans (GitHub, Wikipedia), DIN Next (Wikipedia)

Used when needed for specific purposes (eg presentations, graphics): General Sans, Neue Haas Unica (Wikipedia), Neue Haas Grotesk (Microsoft, MyFonts, Wikipedia), Inter (Story, GitHub, Wikipedia), Jost* (Wikipedia), Cooper Hewitt, URW Dock, Libre Franklin (Wikipedia), Trade Gothic Next (Wikipedia), Gill Sans Nova (Microsoft, Wikipedia)

Serif

A graphic titled ‘Serif’ with three columns of typefaces under the headings ‘used frequently’, ‘used infrequently’, and ‘used when needed’.

Used frequently in documents, presentations, and graphics: Mercury, Source Serif 4 (Wikipedia, GitHub), Charter (ITC Charter), TT Jenevers (MyFonts), Stempel Garamond LT (Wikipedia)

Used infrequently for specific purposes (eg printed documents): Crimson Pro (GitHub), Vollkorn (Story), Sabon Next LT (Microsoft, Wikipedia)

Used when needed for specific purposes (eg presentations, graphics): Malabar, Alegreya, PT Astra Serif, Gentium Plus

Monospace, slab serif, reading, website

A graphic with four columns of typefaces under the headings ‘monospace’, ‘slab serif’, ‘reading’, and ‘website’.

Monospace used for coding (JetBrains Mono), note taking (Berkeley Mono), writing, and graphics: JetBrains Mono (GitHub), Berkeley Mono, Drafting* Mono, Fira Mono (GitHub, Wikipedia), Source Code Pro (GitHub), Cascadia Code (Wikipedia, Microsoft)

Slab serif used mostly for headings and graphics: Sentinel, Bitter (GitHub), Zilla Slab (Wikipedia, GitHub), Klinic Slab, Tisa Offc Serif (Microsoft, MyFonts)

Typefaces used for reading on devices (eg Bookerly on Kindle), websites (eg Whitney on NewsBlur), and apps (eg Vollkorn in Aquile Reader): Literata (Wikipedia, GitHub), Bookerly (Wikipedia), Whitney, Vollkorn (Story)

Typefaces used on websites (eg Chaparral and Myriad Condensed on this website): Chaparral, Myriad (Wikipedia), Myriad Condensed, Noto Serif (Wikipedia, Story, GitHub), Noto Sans (Wikipedia, Story, GitHub), Merriweather (GitHub), Oswald

Commentary

Don’t worry, I’m not going to explain why these are my favourite typefaces! That would be tedious and self indulgent of me. I just wanted to document this list somewhere.

I’m always on the lookout for more typefaces to explore and try, by the way. So what are your favourites? I’d love to know!

Franklin Gothic alternatives

UPDATE (Oct 2024): In the first 1 minute, 12 seconds of this video on YouTube I show you my four free and four paid recommended alternatives (with download links in the description).

Since we’ve talked about alternatives to a typeface I don’t like (Times New Roman) and I typeface I adore (Frutiger), let’s now talk about alternatives to a typeface I like, but haven’t used much: Franklin Gothic.

Graphic titled ‘Franklin Gothic’ with the phrase ‘Quickbeam’ shown in large letters in the middle. Two features of this typeface are called-out: extra bold display weight and curled tail on the uppercase ‘Q’.

The reason I haven’t used Franklin Gothic much historically is because the only font you get with Windows is Franklin Gothic Medium and that’s not general-purpose enough for most of my needs.

You do get access to the larger Franklin Gothic family of Book, Medium, Demi, and Heavy if you purchase Microsoft Office, but for one reason or another I’ve never gotten around to using it. I think this is mainly because I rarely create the poster and editorial designs that Franklin Gothic is known for. And while Franklin Gothic Book is a good typeface for body text, its Bold version isn’t particularly bold so you have to manually switch to Demi every time.

So assuming you don’t want to spend a few hundred dollars on buying the full Franklin Gothic typeface family, let’s talk about alternatives.

But first we need to talk about Franklin Gothic itself.

Franklin Gothic is three typefaces in a trench coat

Morris Fuller Benton designed Franklin Gothic for American Type Founders in 1902 in just one extra-bold display weight. Then in 1903 he designed Alternate Gothic, a compressed and moderately-bold version of Franklin Gothic that was made available in three numbered widths. Finally in 1908 he designed News Gothic, which is a lighter-weight version of Franklin Gothic.

So if you were to talk about the Franklin Gothic ‘family’ of typefaces at the start of the 20th century, you’d include all three of those in your discussion.

Graphic showing the phrase ‘Quickbeam’ in large text in Franklin Gothic, Alternate Gothic No.3, and News Gothic.

These days there are multiple versions of those individual typefaces available, each one fleshed out to a full family with several weights:

But for now let’s just focus on the ones readily available to me:

The good news for all of us is that high quality alternatives to all those typefaces are readily available, and several of them are free to use.

Franklin Gothic alternatives

If you’re looking for alternative-alternatives to Franklin Gothic – meaning something that is similar, but not the same – then check out Jeremiah Shoaf’s top-ten-alternatives list on Typewolf.

But if you’re looking for an excellent free and open source replacement to Franklin Gothic, then your best bet is Libre Franklin.

Libre Franklin comes in nine weights, so its regular weight is a good alternative to Franklin Gothic Book. Its letterforms are a little larger than Franklin Gothic, though, so you’ll need to reduce Libre Franklin’s font size to about 90% if you want a drop-in replacement.

Graphic showing the phrase ‘Quickbeam’ in large text in Franklin Gothic Book, Libre Franklin, and Libre Franklin with the font size reduced to 90%.

Similarly, Libre Franklin Medium is a good alternative to Franklin Gothic Medium – though you’ll have to reduce Libre Franklin’s font size to about 92% if you want a drop-in replacement.

Graphic showing the phrase ‘Quickbeam’ in large text in Franklin Gothic Medium, Libre Franklin Medium, and Libre Franklin Medium with the font size reduced to 92%.

A couple of minor tweaks to Libre Franklin’s font size and line height are all you need for this typeface family to be a drop-in replacement for the other Franklin Gothic weights as well.

Graphic showing two columns of short text blocks and large heading and title text. The left column shows these in Franklin Gothic Book, Franklin Gothic Medium, and Franklin Gothic Heavy. The right column shows these in Libre Franklin, Libre Franklin Medium, and Libre Franklin Black. A note below the right column reads, “Font sizes and line spacing adjusted to match”.

So that was easy.

Alternate Gothic alternatives

The original Alternate Gothic came in three numbered widths.

Graphic showing the phrase ‘Quickbeam’ in large text in Alternate Gothic No.1, Alternate Gothic No.2, and Alternate Gothic No.3.

It’s modern digital version no longer has numbered widths, but if you buy that you do get forty fonts at four different widths – so that’s cool.

But if you’re not after one of the particularly compressed versions, then Oswald is an excellent free and open source alternative. As with Libre Franklin, you’ll need to reduce its font size a bit if you’re after a drop-in replacement.

Graphic showing the phrase ‘Quickbeam’ in large text in Alternate Gothic No.3, Oswald, and Oswald with the font size reduced to 88%.

I really like Oswald and for the longest time used it as the heading typeface on this blog. It’s not great for running text, but it’s okay for short text blocks.

Graphic showing two columns of short text blocks and large heading and title text. The left column shows these in Alternate Gothic No.3. The right column shows these in Oswald. A note below the right column reads, “Font sizes adjusted to match”.

More recently I used Oswald Light in the letterhead design for my sister’s clinical practice.

Screenshot of the top of a letterhead that reads, “Dr. Asha Bedar, clinical psychologist”.

News Gothic alternatives

News Gothic is interesting because American Type Founders (who Morris Fuller Benton designed all these typefaces for) no longer sells this typeface. Instead you use Franklin Gothic Light. So all we have of the original typeface these days are versions and direct descendants from other type foundries.

I listed News Gothic’s various non-American Type Founders versions above and its most notable descendant is Benton Sans – which is fantastic, but expensive.

My preferred News Gothic alternative is Public Sans – which is excellent, free, and open source.

Graphic showing the phrase ‘Quickbeam’ in large text in News Gothic and Public Sans.

The thing I like most about Public Sans is that its characters are less ambiguous than News Gothic. For example, you can’t confuse its uppercase ‘i’ with its lowercase ‘l’ because the lowercase ‘l’ has that little curve at the bottom (like you can see in the word ‘Franklin’ below).

Graphic showing two columns of short text blocks and large heading and title text. The left column shows these in News Gothic. The right column shows these in Public Sans.

My favourite alternatives

While I really like and recommend Libre Franklin, Oswald, and Public Sans, those actually aren’t the alternatives I use most often.

My favourite alternatives to Franklin Gothic are Trade Gothic Next, Whitney Narrow, and Source Sans 3.

Graphic showing the phrase ‘Quickbeam’ in large text in Franklin Gothic Book, Trade Gothic Next, Whitney Narrow, and Source Sans 3.

Trade Gothic Next is Linotype’s alternative to Franklin Gothic. Its Regular weight is similar to Franklin Gothic, its Light weight is similar to News Gothic, and its Compressed and Condensed weights are similar to Alternate Gothic. It is an expensive typeface family, but I got its Regular weight as part of a sale bundle and have enjoyed using it since.

Whitney is one of my all-time favourite typefaces, and its Whitney Narrow variant is a modern and more friendly alternative to Franklin Gothic. These are both paid typefaces, but I think they’re worth every penny.

Source Sans 3, on the other hand, is a free typeface. It too is a friendlier and more modern version of Franklin Gothic. It’s also one I’ve used most often because it is so easily available on the web (eg in Google Docs and Google Fonts).

Graphic showing four short text blocks set in Franklin Gothic Book, Trade Gothic Next, Whitney Narrow, and Source Sans 3.

Concluding thoughts

Over the years I’ve looked at Franklin Gothic, News Gothic, and a bunch of other American gothics and though, “I should try to figure all this out” and now I’ve been able to do that.

I don’t expect I’ll use Franklin Gothic any more than I have in the past, but at least I now know what to use if I want that express that kind of feeling!

 

Frutiger alternatives

In my last post I talked about Times New Roman alternatives because (a) everyone has access to Times New Roman and (b) it has alternatives that are both superior and readily available.

Now I’m going to talk about some alternatives to Frutiger because (a) very few people have access to Frutiger and (b) it is an excellent typeface that is also one of my all-time favorites.

Graphic titled ‘Frutiger’ with the phrase ‘Multivac QA1’ shown in large letters in the middle. A few features of this typeface are called-out: higher x-height, square dots, double storey lowercase ‘a’, open apertures, diagonal serif on the digit ‘1’, low bar on the uppercase ‘A’, stroke only below circle on the uppercase ‘Q’, and centre stroke descends to base on the uppercase ‘M’.

Why an alternative?

If Frutiger is such a great typeface, why even talk about alternatives? Shouldn’t I just recommend that people go out and buy a license to Frutiger itself?

*sigh* I wish.

Unlike Helvetica, Times New Roman, Baskerville, and Garamond, none of the operating systems or word processors that we all use today license Frutiger to its users at no additional cost. If you want to use Frutiger, you have go buy it for yourself.

And there’s the rub. Here are the current prices for Frutiger in US Dollars:

So, yeah. Unless you have a lot of money lying around or you’re a designer for whom this type of business expense makes sense, it’s best to look for an alternative.

Screenshot from the MyFonts.com website showing the Frutiger Next family with individual styles from $83.28 and the complete family of 21 fonts for $846.84.

But why Frutiger?

Why make all this effort for Frutiger? Aren’t the typefaces that come with Windows, macOS, Microsoft Office, and LibreOffice enough?

Well, yes. You could live your life using only the typefaces you get out of the box – and those are excellent typefaces. But where’s the fun in looking like everyone else in the world? :)

And to explain the “why Frutiger?” bit, let’s talk about its design.

Why Frutiger looks the way it does

Frutiger was designed Adrian Frutiger in 1972 as a wayfinding typeface for Roissy Airport (now Charles de Gaulle Airport) in Paris, France. A few years later, in 1976, it was released publicly as a commercially available typeface.

But Frutiger comes from a much older tradition of ‘grotesk’ (ie sans serif) typefaces.

One of the original grotesks is Akzidenz Grotesk from 1898. This typeface heavily influenced Helvetica and Univers, with the latter having been designed by Adrian Frutiger himself. Both Helvetica and Univers were instant hits when they were released in 1957 and you still see them everywhere these days.

Graphic showing the phrase ‘Multivac QA1’ in large text in Akzidenz Grotesk, Helvetica, and Univers. There are arrows pointing from Akzidenz Grotesk to both Helvetica and Universe.

Another older grotesk is Johnston (1916) and this is what the hugely popular Gill Sans (1926) is based on. Gill Sans is the friendly typeface you see in the London Underground and on things like Penguin Books.

When Adrian Frutiger created his Frutiger typeface, he based it on “the rationality and cleanliness of Univers” and “the organic and proportional aspects of Gill Sans”. [1]

Graphic showing the phrase ‘Multivac QA1’ in large text in Univers, Gill Sans, and Frutiger. There are arrows pointing from both Universe and Gill Sans to Frutiger.

Frutiger is the best of both worlds

That combination is what I love about Frutiger:

  • It feels somewhat rational, which in typeface design parlance refers to vertical shapes and closed apertures (eg openings in letters like the lowercase ‘c’). It gets this vibe from Univers, Helvetica, and Akzidenz Grotesk.

  • But it also feels organic, meaning more handwriting-like and with open apertures. It gets this vibe from Gill Sans.

You don’t get that combination of vibes from typefaces like Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, and the like – all of which feel mostly neutral and rational, maybe even cold and impersonal.

Frutiger is upright and authoritative, yes, but it also feels somewhat warm and friendly – all while remaining highly legible and readable at all sizes.

Two official versions of digital Frutiger

I should mention that there are two official, modern versions of the digital Frutiger typeface: Neue Frutiger and Frutiger Next. Both were design by, or co-designed with, Adrian Frutiger and both have their uses.

Neue Frutiger (2009) is closer to the 1976 public release. This is what you should use if you want an expanded digital version of the original.

Frutiger Next (1999) is a modernised version of the original with a higher x-height, narrower letterspacing, more pronounced ascenders, and true italics (italics that look calligraphic, as opposed to italics that are just oblique version of the regular, upright letterforms). This is what you should use if you’re going to set Frutiger in large blocks of text.

Graphic showing two text blocks, one set in Neue Frutiger and the other set in Frutiger Next. The text in Neue Frutiger is wider and larger. .

With that out of the way, let’s talk about alternatives.

Large-foundry alternatives

If we’re not going to spend over eight hundred dollars on Frutiger, regardless of how much we love it, what are our options?

The first thing I do in situations like this is see if any large foundries have typefaces that are similar. And, as it happens…

Myriad Pro from Adobe

Myriad from Adobe is a friendlier and slightly more elegant version of Frutiger. It was released in 1992 and Apple started using it in its logo and corporate design in 2002.

You can buy the Myriad Pro 10-font family for US$353 or the complete 40-font Myriad family for US$1,413. So the normal Myriad Pro family is already a much more affordable option.

Segoe and Segoe UI from Monotype

Segoe from Agfa Monotype (now Monotype Imaging) is another friendlier and slightly more elegant version of Frutiger. Microsoft started using Segoe in its logo and corporate design in 2003.

Unfortunately, Segoe isn’t available for sale. But if you’re a Windows user, there is a sub-family of Segoe called Segoe UI that you can use right now for free.

Graphic showing four short text blocks that are set in Neue Frutiger, Frutiger Next, Myriad Pro, and Segoe UI. There are comments written under each heading. Under Neue Frutiger the comment reads, “Closer to the original”. Under Frutiger Next the comment reads, “Modernised, with true italics”. Under Myriad Pro the comment reads, “Friendlier version of Frutiger Next”. Under Segoe UI the comment reads, “Friendlier Frutiger Next, optimised for UI”.

Myriad is closer to the design of Frutiger Next, the more modernised version of Frutiger, and Segoe UI falls somewhere between Frutiger Next and Neue Frutiger. Both take things a step in the friendlier direction, with features like the rounded dot in the lowercase ‘i’ and the more curved stroke in the uppercase ‘Q’. Segoe UI is also optimized for user interfaces (UI) so its letterspacing is a bit wider.

Graphic showing the phrase ‘Multivac QA1’ in large text in Neue Frutiger (2009), Frutiger Next (1999), Myriad Pro (1992), and Segoe UI (2003).

So, if you want a more affordable, slightly friendlier version of Frutiger Next, then Myriad Pro is a decent alternative. I myself love Myriad Pro. In fact, the headings in this blog are set in Myriad Pro Condensed.

And if you’re a Windows user, then you could just go ahead and use Segoe UI instead. However, you will have to make a bunch of manual tweaks (like tighter letterspacing) and that might be too much of a hassle for most people.

Graphic showing four text blocks that are set in Neue Frutiger, Frutiger Next, Myriad Pro, and Segoe UI. The text set in Myriad Pro and Segoe UI looks more like the text set in Frutiger Next than the text set in Neue Frutiger.

Free alternatives

The next thing I do when looking for alternatives is to see if there are any free ones available.

You can sometimes get:

  • Close-enough alternatives from type designers and independent type foundries that you can use in certain designs.

  • Open-source versions (some even drop-in replacements) of older typefaces that aren’t under copyright. (Sometimes these modern versions are even better than the originals, like in the case of Times New Roman.)

  • Multilingual versions created by multilingual type designers and type foundries with support for their specific languages.

Frutiger has one-and-a-half of these.

Hind from Indian Type Foundry

Hind is a version of Frutiger Next created by Indian Type Foundry that supports the Devanagari and Latin scripts. However this typeface is optimised for use in user interfaces and it has no italics, so it’s not good for general-purpose use.

If you need a Frutiger version for signage and UI, then this might work for you.

Roboto from Google

Roboto is a “Frankenfont” that borrows heavily from the Helvetica, Myriad, Univers, FF DIN, and Ronnia typefaces – though its v2.0 is more unified in its design [2]. It was developed completely inhouse at Google [3].

While only parts of Roboto borrow from Univers and Myriad (both of which are related to Frutiger), if you needed a non-Helvetica, non-Arial, general-purpose typeface, Roboto is a reasonable choice.

Graphic showing the phrase ‘Multivac QA1’ in large text in Neue Frutiger, Frutiger Next, Hind, and Robot.

That said, I would not recommend Hind or Roboto to most people who are looking for Frutiger alternatives: Hind because it’s not a complete, general-purpose typeface and Roboto because it’s not really Frutiger. (Also because Roboto is the most-used Google Font and we’re, you know, trying to not follow the crowd here.)

Smaller-foundry alternatives

Our last option is typefaces with designs inspired by Frutiger that have been created by smaller type foundries.

Epoca by Hoftype

Epoca is a slightly more elegant version of Frutiger Next. It is the only typeface inspired by Frutiger that keeps the square dot over the lowercase ‘i’ and ‘j’. But then it adds design features like a slightly slanted upward stroke on the uppercase ‘M’ and a higher cross-bar on the uppercase ‘A’. So not quite Frutiger, but close enough.

You can buy the Epoca 8-font family for US$307. If you think Myriad is too modern and friendly (round dots!) and you want to spend $50 less, then this typeface is for you. 

Fact by Paratype

Fact is a friendlier version of Frutiger Next, complete with round dots. What’s cool about this typeface is that it’s a full type system of 98 fonts across six weights – plus a variable font – that supports 100 languages.

You can buy the Fact Normal 16-font family right now for just US$23 from MyFonts. Or you can buy its complete 98-font family from Paratype for US$330.

Graphic showing the phrase ‘Multivac QA1’ in large text in Neue Frutiger, Frutiger Next, Epoca, and Fact.

My recommendation

What would I recommend as an alternative to Frutiger then?

Well I wouldn’t recommend any of the free alternatives. Out-of-copyright typefaces like Franklin Gothic (1912) have excellent open-source versions like Libre Franklin. Typefaces like Frutiger do not.

I’d be tempted to recommend Myriad. It’s a more modern and, dare I say it, slightly cooler version of Frutiger Next. But its regular, 10-font family costs US$353 and its complete, 40-font family costs US$1,413. Epoca is more cost effective (US$307 for its 10-font family), but I haven’t used so I don’t have any personal experience with it. It does have a slightly different vibe from Frutiger though. And while Segoe UI is a good alternative for Windows users, it is a screen-first font that’s designed for user interfaces, so you might need to tweak it a bit to fit your various needs.

So the only alternative I would recommend is, in fact, Fact. Fact fits somewhere between Neue Frutiger and Frutiger Next, and its design is subtly cool in its own way. It’s Normal, 16-font family currently costs a measly US$26 and you can get its complete, 98-font family for US$330 – which $23 is less than just the regular version of Myriad!

Graphic showing four short text blocks that are set in Neue Frutiger, Frutiger Next, Myriad Pro, and Segoe UI. There are comments written under each heading. Under Neue Frutiger the comment reads, “Closer to the original”. Under Frutiger Next the comment reads, “Modernised, with true italics”. Under Myriad Pro the comment reads, “Friendlier version of Frutiger Next”. Under Fact the comment reads, “Friendlier Frutiger Next/Neue Frutiger”.

Fact is very readable at all sizes and, because it has so many weights in its narrower and expanded variations, you can fit it into pretty much whatever it is that you’re doing.

Graphic showing four text blocks that are set in Neue Frutiger, Frutiger Next, Myriad Pro, and Segoe UI. The text set in Myriad Pro looks more like the text set in Frutiger Next than the text set in Neue Frutiger. The text set in Fact looks to be somewhere between the text set in Frutiger Next and Neue Frutiger.

I’ve been using Fact since last year and it has quickly become my go-to typeface for a whole range of uses.

Will I still purchase Frutiger if I, like, win the lottery or get a big bonus at work? Absolutely. Though even then I’ll likely end up using both Fact and Frutiger in different situations. But I’m happy with where I am right now and I am no longer hankering for Frutiger like I used to in the past.

Concluding thoughts

I had a lot of fun research, compiling, and writing this. I’m afraid that means you’ll see more of these types of posts in the future. Hopefully not too many – I know most of you aren’t typography nerds like I am! – but we’ll see how we go.

Let me know if there’s a typeface you want me to dive into in a future post. I’m happy to take requests :)

In the meantime, have fun with your typography!

Times New Roman alternatives – follow-up

UPDATE (Sep 2024): In the first 1 minute, 11 seconds of this video on YouTube I show you my four recommended alternatives (with download links in the description).

I thought I was done with my inadvertent deep-dive into Times New Roman alternatives, but then I talked about all this on social media and got some interesting responses. So here’s a quick follow-up for completeness’ sake.

Before I go forward, though, I need to go back for a quick sec…

Alternatives I’d recommended

What I use

In my earlier post I’d talked about the two typefaces I use instead of Times New Roman. This is for when I’m writing reports, articles, letters, etc that require a non-nonsense, neutral serif typeface that’s suitable for both screen and print [1].

The typefaces I use are:

Neither looks like Times New Roman and neither is a drop-in replacement for Times New Roman, but both are excellent typefaces [2].

Graphic showing two short text blocks that are set in Source Serif 4 and Mercury. There are comments written under each heading. Under Source Serif 4 the comment reads, “Friendlier, wider, larger”. Under Mercury the comment reads, “More modern, larger, darker text”.

Drop-in replacements I recommend

I recommended two drop-in replacements for Times New Roman as well, both of which are also excellent typefaces:

Graphic showing two short text blocks that are set in PT Astra Serif and Equity Text A. There are comments written under each heading. Under PT Astra Serif the comment reads, “Friendlier (less sharp)”. Under Equity Text A the comment reads, “More readable (less sharp, darker text)”.

Drop-in replacements I didn’t recommend

There are, of course, a few drop-in replacements I didn’t recommend, like:

Tinos is nice (though I like PT Astra Serif better) but the others are too much like Times New Roman for me to recommend as superior alternatives.

Graphic showing two text blocks, one set in Times New Roman and the other set in Tinos. The text block in Tinos is easier to read because the characters are wider and larger than the ones set in Times New Roman.

What others recommended

This brings me to the two main suggestions I got from folks on social media.

One suggestion was Linux Libertine which, again, is too much like Times New Roman for me to recommend.

But the other was Spectral, which is actually quite good.

Graphic titled ‘Spectral’ with the word ‘Wintermute’ shown in large letters in the middle. A few features of this typeface are called-out: lower stroke contrast, angled brackets, angled terminals, wedge serifs, more open apertures, relatively wider letterspacing.

Spectral is not a drop-in replacement for Times New Roman (it is more widely spaced) but it does look like Times New Roman. If you made Times New Roman slightly thicker and replaced its curves with angles (compare the lowercase ‘t’ and ‘r’ below) you would get Spectral.

Graphic showing the word ‘Wintermute’ in large text in Times New Roman and Spectral. The two typefaces are similar to each other, though the word is wider when set in Spectral.

These design choices make sense, since Spectral was commissioned by Google for use in Google Docs and Sheets, both of which are screen-first products with less of a focus on creating printable materials. Times New Roman, on the other hand, was designed for high-speed printing in space-constrained newspapers and so it is crisp, narrow, and tightly letterspaced.

When you compare the two typefaces in blocks of text on a screen, Spectral is therefore the more readable of the two.

Graphic showing two text blocks, one set in Times New Roman and the other set in Spectral. The text in Spectral is wider, larger, and easier to read because it was designed to be read on the screen.

So does learning about Spectral change any of my recommendations? Actually, no.

If we are not aiming for a drop-in replacement for Times New Roman, then think Source Serif 4 is still the better, more versatile alternative typeface.

Graphic showing two text blocks, one set in Source Serif 4 and the other set in Spectral. The text block in Source Serif 4 is easier to read because the spacing between the letters is smaller.

But there is another contender…

That said, Production Type – the same type foundry that created Spectral (2017) – was commissioned by Google again to create another serif typeface: Newsreader (2020). And Newsreader does give Times New Roman a run for its money.

Graphic titled ‘Newsreader Text’ with the word ‘Wintermute’ shown in large letters in the middle. A few features of this typeface are called-out: lower stroke contrast, straight brackets, rounded terminals, wedge serifs, more open apertures, slightly less condensed letterspacing.

What I like about Newsreader is that, while it is a screen-first typeface, it works just as well in print. And what’s particularly cool about it is that it comes in three optical sizes: Display, Text, and Caption.

So if you are going to be creating, say, a report or a website with large-sized headings of various sizes, normal-sized body text, and small-sized image/table captions, then you can make the most of the different typeface variations of Newsreader that were designed specifically to be used at those optical sizes.

Graphic showing the word ‘Wintermute’ in large text in Times New Roman, Newsreader Display, Newsreader Text, and Newsreader Caption. The word is about the same width in Times New Roman and Newsreader Text. The word is darker and thicker in Newsreader Display and much chunkier and wider in Newsreader Caption.

You can see how much of a difference this makes in the text-block comparison below. Large-sized Times New Roman Bold makes for an insipid heading and small-sized Times New Roman Regular makes for a mostly-unreadable caption. Newsreader Display and Newsreader Caption, on the other hand, are up to the task.

Meanwhile Newsreader Text, despite having wider letterforms, is so well letterspaced that is actually takes up slightly less space on the page than Times New Roman does!

Graphic showing two text blocks, one set in Times New Roman and the other set in Newsreader Display, Text, and Caption. The text block in Newsreader is easier to read, partly because of the wider letter spacing in Newsreader Text and Caption.

Updating my recommendations

This then does change my recommendations. But instead of removing a recommended typeface, I’m going to add one.

For the average user

Writing a report, article, or letter that needs a typeface like Times New Roman?

Use PT Astra Serif which is a like-for-like replacement.

Installing and then swapping one typeface for another is something the average user can easily do and should totally do.

For the typography enthusiast

Writing a report or article that needs a typeface like Times New Roman, but your document has lots of headings and captions and you want to be a little ~*extra*~?

Use Newsreader Text for a like-for-like body text replacement and then use Newsreader Display and Newsreader Caption to create better titles/headings and captions.

This is something that folks who care about typography and design should do.

For the professional

Writing reports, articles, or letters professionally that need a typeface like Times New Roman?

Purchase Equity Text and use that as a like-for-like body text replacement. You can even pick between two shade grades – Equity Text A, which is darker, and Equity Text B, which is lighter – based on which one looks better when you print it out. And if you use all-capital letters anywhere (which lawyers use all the time, for example) then use the included Equity Small Caps variation instead because that looks significantly better.

An average user won’t pay for a typeface, but that is something a professional who wants to stand out from the crowd definitely should do.

Graphic showing four text blocks that are set in Times New Roman, PT Astra Serif, Newsreader, and Equity Text A. The text blocks all take up about the same amount of space, but the text set in Times New Roman is the least readable on screen.

Concluding thoughts

For a typeface I haven’t used in sixteen years, I’ve sure written a lot about Times New Roman recently! Hopefully this is all I’ll have to say on the matter for a while.

All I can say to conclude this chapter in my life is: please don’t use Times New Roman. There are several superior options available these days. Get with the program.

[1] If I didn’t need to use a no-nonsense, neutral serif typeface, there are many other typefaces I would pick instead (over and above Source Serif 4 and Mercury, of course). Typefaces like Chaparral (beautiful, friendly), Charter (solid, friendly), Crimson Pro (beautiful, warm), Merriweather (solid, friendly), Sabon Next (classic, neutral), Stempel Garamond LT (classic, neutral), and TT Jenevers (friendly, warm) to name a few.

[2] If I need to send someone a Word version of my document I always use Source Serif 4, but if I’m able to send a PDF then I’m more inclined to use Mercury.

Times New Roman alternatives

UPDATE (Sep 2024): In the first 1 minute, 11 seconds of this video on YouTube I show you my four recommended alternatives (with download links in the description).

I don’t like using Times New Roman, even though I’ve used it a lot over the years (mainly for school and university assignments in the 1990s and 2000s).

This is partly because it was the original default typeface in Microsoft Word and it’s easy to get tired of defaults [1]. But also because I find it too thin (because of its high stroke contrast), too sharp (because of its serifs), and too condensed (because of its narrow letters and tight letterspacing).

Graphic titled ‘Times New Roman’ with the word ‘Wintermute’ shown in large letters in the middle. A few features of this typeface are called-out: higher stroke contrast, curved brackets, rounded terminals, sharp serifs, closed apertures, relatively condensed letterspacing.

Its thinness, sharpness, and condensed-ness works well for newspaper printing where you’re trying to squeeze a lot of text into a small space while also minimising your use of ink. But that isn’t always the best choice when you’re writing letters, reports, and assignments.

And it doesn’t even look nice on the screen when you’re writing in it in Microsoft Word.

Fortunately, my professional work ended up being all digital and web-based, so I don’t think I’ve written anything in Times New Roman since I finished my MBA in 2008.

My go-to alternative: Source Serif

Of course I have needed to write formal letters in a serif typeface since 2008, and for that my go-to serif has been Source Serif – originally Source Serif Pro, now Source Serif 4.

I also always use this typeface when I have to send someone a Word version of my document (into which I embed these fonts) and not a PDF.

Graphic titled ‘Source Serif 4’ with the word ‘Wintermute’ shown in large letters in the middle. A few features of this typeface are called-out: lower stroke contrast, straight brackets, rounded terminals, thicker serifs, closed apertures, relatively wider letterspacing.

I love Source Serif because it has a lower stroke contrast and thicker serifs, and because its characters and letterspacing are a little wider.

Graphic showing the word ‘Wintermute’ in large text in both Times New Roman and Source Serif 4. The Source Serif 4 letters and letterspacing are both wider, so the word takes up more horizontal space on the line.

That letterspacing can be an issue though. That’s because, at the same point size, your text ends up being longer overall. I don’t usually mind, because the resulting text looks friendlier and more solid, and overall has a darker shade.

Graphic showing two text blocks, one set in Times New Roman and the other set in Source Serif 4. The text block in Source Serif 4 looks darker, is easier to read, and takes up more space.

A new contender appears: PT Astra Serif

Last week, however, I came across PT Astra Serif. This is supposed to be a drop-in replacement for Times New Roman. And because it was created by Paratype, a type foundry I quite like, I thought I’d install it and take a look.

Graphic titled ‘PT Astra Serif’ with the word ‘Wintermute’ shown in large letters in the middle. A few features of this typeface are called-out: lower stroke contrast, straight brackets, sharper terminals, wedge serifs, more open apertures, relatively condensed letterspacing.

There are several things I like about PT Astra Serif. Compared to Times New Roman its:

  • stroke contrast is lower,

  • brackets are straighter,

  • terminals are sharper,

  • serifs are thicker, and

  • apertures are more open.

And size-wise it is, indeed, a drop-in replacement.

Graphic showing the word ‘Wintermute’ in large text in Times New Roman, Source Serif 4, and PT Astra Serif. The Source Serif 4 letters and letterspacing are both wider, so the word takes up more horizontal space on the line. The word is about the same overall width in Times New Roman and PT Astra Serif.

That means text written in PT Astra Serif is friendlier and darker, but otherwise pretty much the same size as Times New Roman.

Graphic showing two text blocks, one set in Times New Roman and the other set in PT Astra Serif. The text block in PT Astra Serif looks darker, is easier to read, and takes up the same amount of space as the text block set in Times New Roman.

So maybe going forward PT Astra Serif will be my alternative to writing documents in a Times New Roman-like typeface? I guess I’ll have to try it in a real-world scenario and see.

If we were going to get professional: Equity Text

Of course if I was writing these types of documents professionally, I would use MB Type’s Equity Text instead. Specifically I’d use Equity Text A, which is the slightly darker version.

Graphic titled ‘Equity Text A’ with the word ‘Wintermute’ shown in large letters in the middle. A few features of this typeface are called-out: lower stroke contrast, curved brackets, teardrop terminals, wedge serifs, more open apertures, relatively condensed letterspacing.

This too is a drop-in replacement that, while a smidge wider in the example below (because of better kerning, tbh), is otherwise closer to the design of Times New Roman itself.

Graphic showing the word ‘Wintermute’ in large text in Times New Roman, Equity Text A, and PT Astra Serif. The word is about the same overall width in all three typefaces, though the Equity Text A word is fractionally wider.

Which means that, while text blocks written in Equity Text A have a darker shade and are considerably more readable, they take up about the same amount of space on the page as Times New Roman does.

Graphic showing two text blocks, one set in Times New Roman and the other set in Equity Text A. The text block in Equity Text A looks darker, is easier to read, and takes up the same amount of space as the text block set in Times New Roman.

Putting it all together…

The slight differences between these typefaces become clearer when you put them all next to each other.

Graphic showing four short text blocks that are set in Times New Roman, PT Astra Serif, Equity Text A, and Source Serif 4. There are comments written under each heading. Under Times New Roman the comment reads, “Sharp, narrow, tightly-spaced”. Under PT Astra Serif the comment reads, “Friendlier (less sharp)”. Under Equity Text A the comment reads, “More readable (less sharp, darker text)”. Under Source Serif 4 the comment reads, “Friendlier (less sharp), wider, larger”.

When you look at the text blocks below, you can see why Equity Text is the obvious best choice (at least it is to me).

Graphic showing four text blocks that are set in Times New Roman, PT Astra Serif, Equity Text A, and Source Serif 4. The text block in Equity Text A takes up the same amount of space as the Times New Roman and PT Astra Serif text blocks, but it is the easiest to read.

As a professional I’d be thrilled with Equity Text because my work would look significantly nicer than the work of all the other shmucks who were still using boring old Times New Roman :) And that’s something I’d be happy to pay for, especially since Equity Text is surprisingly affordable as typefaces go.

My other preferred alternative: Mercury

Fortunately, I am not a professional who needs to use that style of typeface. So what I actually end up using in my serif-text-block PDFs is Hoefler&Co’s Mercury – another typeface created for print newspaper publishing (though this one in the late 1990s).

Mercury is considerably larger and wider than Times New Roman, and even wider than Source Serif 4.

Graphic showing the word ‘Wintermute’ in large text in Times New Roman, Source Serif 4, and Mercury. The Source Serif 4 letters and letterspacing are both wider, so the word takes up more horizontal space on the line. The Mercury letters and letterspacing are even wider than that, so this word takes up even more horizontal space on the line.

But the cool thing is that when you drop its size down by 2 points and gently nudge its line spacing to be a little higher, you can make it fit about the same amount of space as Times New Roman.

Graphic showing two text blocks, one set in Times New Roman and the other set in Mercury. The text block in PT Astra Serif looks darker, is easier to read, and takes up the same amount of space as the text block set in Times New Roman. A note under the Mercury text box reads, “Note: This text is 2pt smaller than the text on the left, with 5% higher line spacing (ie x1.05 line spacing)”.

Of course when you do this you completely change the vibe of your text – which, in my case, is very much intentional!

Bottom line

Through all this one thing is clear: unless you’re printing a newspaper that needs to look like it came from the 1930s to 1970s, it is time to leave Time New Roman behind and embrace any other typeface for your serif-y writing.

And if you’re ready to leave Times New Roman behind, perhaps you’re considering alternatives to other default system typefaces as well? If so, read about my journey of moving away from default typefaces. Though really you should read the ‘Font recommendations’ chapter of Matthew Butterick’s Practical Typography  instead [2]. That whole book is free and readily available on the web. And if you’re even slightly into typography, I would highly recommend you read it.

(Matthew Butterick, by the way, is a lawyer, typographer, and the designer of Equity Text.)

Whatever you do, have fun and enjoy the wonderful world of modern, digital typography that we all have at our fingertips these days.

[1] Times New Roman was replaced by Calibri as the default typeface in Microsoft Word in 2007. That, in turn, was replaced by Aptos as the new default in 2024.

[2] Maybe if you’re a lawyer you should read Typography for Lawyers instead – even if it is a little US-focused.

 

My favourite typeface pairings

Having talked about my favourite typefaces, I figured I’d also talk about how I pair those typefaces when using them in various projects.

Here I’m talking mostly about pairing body text and heading typefaces for reading (like on websites or in PDFs) and for writing (like when writing blog posts like these in Microsoft Word).

How do you pair typefaces?

Select your body text typeface and then for the heading typeface choose between harmony and contrast…

Harmony

  • Use the same typeface and maybe pick one with a different weight (eg Regular for the body text and Extra Bold for the headings).

  • Pick a typeface from the same superfamily (eg body text in Source Sans and headings in Source Serif), though this isn’t guaranteed to be the best option in every scenario.

  • Stick to the same broad design classification, ie organic (friendly, warm, human) or mechanical (geometric, stiff, regular). Contemporary typefaces sometimes mix features so this works best with older typefaces.

  • Pick a typeface from the same type designer or type foundry. This doesn’t always work with large foundries like Linotype and Monotype, but works with smaller ones like Hoefler&Co.

  • Pick a typeface with the same mood, vibe, or feel.

Contrast

  • Pick a typeface from a different category, ie serifs with sans serif (or semi-serif).

  • Pick a neutral typeface that doesn’t change the vibe of the body text but still provides a visual difference.

  • Pick a typeface that maintains or enhances the vibe of the body text. If your body text is sharp and angular pick something equally (or even more) sharp and angular. This works best if your body text typeface has a distinct or strong character.

  • Pick a typeface that creates its own vibe if the body text you’re using is somewhat neutral, meaning it doesn’t have a distinct or strong character.

  • Pick a typeface that creates design tension. Don’t change the vibe (unless you really know what you’re doing), but you can change the feel. To use an analogy: don’t change cuisines in the middle of your meal, but you can pair something soft with something crunchy.

Whatever you do, do not pick typefaces that are only slightly different from each other. This ends up looking wrong.

(FYI, the Font Matrix is an incredibly useful concept when it comes to pairing typefaces.)

Acquiring these typefaces

I’ve included links to all the typefaces mentioned below in case you want to purchase them or download the free ones:

  • Paid typefaces are in orange with a dollar sign next to them.

  • Default or free typefaces are in blue with a Windows, Mac, or download icon next to them.

And, in case you’re wondering, the text I’m showing in the graphics below is from an anecdote I shared about a work trip to the Gold Coast ten years ago.

Serifs

TT Jenevers

TT Jenevers is one of my favourite typefaces. It works great in text but also works as a display typeface, so I usually pair it with its own Extra Bold weight. If I want an interesting contrast, I’ll pair it with Fact (a modern remake of Frutiger). But if I want something neutral, I’ll pair it with Helvetica.

Graphic showing the typeface TT Jenevers (paid) paired with TT Jenevers Extra Bold (paid), Fact (paid), and Helvetica (default on Windows and Mac).

Mercury

Mercury is designed by Hoefler&Co and I pair it with another one of their typefaces, usually in this order: Whitney (vibe = elegant, modern), Ideal Sans (vibe = warm, human), or Verlag (vibe = classic, art deco).

Graphic showing the typeface Mercury (paid) paired with Whitney (paid), Ideal Sans (paid), and Verlag (paid).

Stempel Garamond

Stempel Garamond is one of my favourite Garamonds and I usually pair it with Fact (a modern remake of Frutiger). If I want something more friendly, I’ll pair it with Gill Sans Nova (a modern remake of Gill Sans). But if I want something fancy, I’ll pair it with Jost* (a modern remake of Futura).

Graphic showing the typeface Stempel Garamond (paid) paired with Fact (paid), Gill Sans Nova (paid, but versions also available on Windows and Mac), and Jost* / Futura (free to download and default on Mac).

Charter

For Charter (which also has an ITC version) I tend to stay neutral and solid, and so I usually pair it with the Extra Bold weight of Public Sans (or Libre Franklin). If I want to be even more neutral, I go with Neue Haas Unica. Or sometimes I go with Inter (which is a remake of Roboto that’s optimised for user interfaces).

Graphic showing the typeface Charter (free to download) paired with Public Sans Extra Bold (free to download), Neue Haas Unica (paid), and Inter (free to download).

Vollkorn

Vollkorn is a down-to-earth typeface, so I don’t pair anything fancy with it – that’s why I usually go with Inter (a modern remake of Roboto) or sometimes Roboto itself. Though if I want a more lively vibe, I go for Neue Haas Unica (a friendlier version of Helvetica).

Graphic showing the typeface Vollkorn (free to download) paired with Inter (free to download), Roboto (free to download), and Neue Haas Unica (paid).

Crimson Pro

Crimson Pro is a contemporary, Garamond-inspired typeface and so I tend to match it with Fact, a contemporary Frutiger-inspired typeface. If I want something more neutral and geometric, I go with Inter (a remake of Roboto). If I want something lively, I go with Neue Haas Unica (a friendlier version of Helvetica).

Graphic showing the typeface Crimson Pro (free to download) paired with Fact (paid), Inter (free to download), and Neue Haas Unica (paid).

Source Serif

Source Serif is inspired by typefaces like Fournier and I almost never pair it with anything other than Source Sans, which is its equivalent in the Source superfamily. If I had to pair it with something else, I’d go with something neutral like Helvetica or Roboto.

Graphic showing the typeface Source Serif (free to download) paired with Source Sans (free to download), Helvetica (default on Windows and Mac), and Roboto (free to download).

Sans serifs

Ideal Sans

Ideal Sans is one of my all-time favourite typefaces. It’s from Hoefler&Co and I pair it with another one of their typefaces, usually in this order: Sentinel (vibe = classic + contemporary), Whitney (vibe = elegant, modern), or Verlag (vibe = classic, art deco).

Graphic showing the typeface Ideal Sans (paid) paired with Sentinel (paid), Whitney (paid), and Verlag (paid).

Whitney

Whitney is also one of my all-time favourite typefaces. It too is from Hoefler&Co and so I pair it with another one of their typefaces, usually in this order: Mercury (vibe = friendly, compact), Verlag (vibe = classic, art deco), or Whitney Narrow (vibe = elegant, modern).

Graphic showing the typeface Whitney (paid) paired with Mercury (paid), Verlag (paid), and Whitney Narrow (paid).

Fact

Fact is a contemporary Frutiger-inspired typeface that I like to pair with TT Jenevers (Extra Bold). If I want something more straightforward I pair it with its own Extra Bold weight. If I want something classic, I pair it with Crimson Pro, a contemporary, Garamond-inspired typeface.

Graphic showing the typeface Fact (paid) paired with TT Jenevers Extra Bold (paid), Fact Extra Bold (paid), and Crimson Pro (free to download).

Fira Sans

Fira Sans is a “wider, calmer” (and free) version of FF Meta, at least according to Erik Spiekermann who created both those typefaces. I like to pair it with TT Jenevers, a Dutch-style serif due to its asymmetrical shapes and ovals that don’t have a uniform slant angle. You’d think this pairing wouldn’t work because they both have their own strong personalities, but the modern Fira Sans works nicely with the classical TT Jenevers. If I don’t want that modern/classical contrast, then I use Merriweather instead – another modern, legible, web-first typeface with its own character. But if I want to go a little more neutral, but still highly legible, I go with General Sans (which I now use wherever I would have otherwise used Montserrat all those years ago).

Graphic showing the typeface Fira Sans (free to download) paired with TT Jenevers Extra Bold (paid), Merriweather (free to download), and General Sans (free to download).

Source Sans

Source Sans is inspired by typefaces like Franklin Gothic (Linotype have their own version of this, which they named Trade Gothic). I almost never pair it with anything other than Source Serif, which is its equivalent in the Source superfamily. If I had do pair it with something else, I’d go with a modern serif like Merriweather or Noto Serif.

Graphic showing the typeface Source Sans (free to download) paired with Source Serif (free to download), Merriweather (free to download), and Noto Serif (free to download).

General Sans

General Sans is a compact (but still readable) geometric typeface that isn’t spiky and expressive like Futura but also isn’t neutral and boring like Roboto. That said, I usually pair it with Jost*, which is a modern remake of Futura. If I want contrast, I go with the matching bigness and orderliness of Noto Serif. But if I want a more interesting contrast, I go with Gill Sans Nova, which is an old-style/geometric hybrid that’s full of character.

Graphic showing the typeface General Sans (free to download) paired with Jost* / Futura (free to download and default on Mac), Noto Serif (free to download), and Gill Sans Nova (paid, but versions also available on Windows and Mac).

Avenir Next LT

Avenir Next LT is a more versatile and fleshed-out version of the original Avenir; while Avenir itself is a more humanist take on the geometric typefaces Futura and Erbar. (I use Avenir Next LT when I want a more geometric version of Whitney but I don’t want something as sharp as Jost*.) I usually pair Avenir Next LT it with Zilla Slab, which brings a nicely contrasting futuristic vibe. If I want something more grounded, then I pair it with Sentinel. Though sometimes I find the best pairing is with Avenir Next LT itself.

Graphic showing the typeface Avenir Next LT (paid, but also included with Microsoft Office since 2019) paired with Zilla Slab (free to download), Sentinel (paid), and Avenir Next LT (paid, but also included with Microsoft Office since 2019).

Slabs

I don’t use slab serif typefaces enough to have a favourites list, but these are the three I use most often:

  • Zilla Slab, an open-source typeface from Mozilla and the one I’ve used in the headings of all the graphics above.

  • Roboto Slab, an open-source typeface from Google that I don’t use often, but is good to have when I need it.

  • Sentinel, which I’ve mentioned above but am including here for completeness’ sake.

Final thoughts

I hope the three of you who made it all the way to the end of this post found it interesting and maybe even useful :)

Since you did make it here, please comment below and tell me what your favourite typeface pairings are and what you use them for. I’d love to know.

FYI, I usually write my blog posts in Microsoft Word with body text in Ideal Sans and headings in Sentinel. But this one I wrote with body text in TT Jenevers and headings in TT Jenevers Extra Bold.

Screenshot showing the top of this blog post as it was written in Microsoft Word using the typefaces TT Jenevers for body text and TT Jenevers Extra Bold for headings.

Note: The Windows, Office, and Mac icons used in the graphics above are by ‘Pixel perfect’, ‘Pixel perfect’ and ‘Freepik’, respectively. Also, if you’re interested, these are the typefaces that come preinstalled with Microsoft Windows and Apple macOS.

4 Jan 2024 update: In the ‘Charter’ section (and the ‘Pairing serif #4: Charter’ graphic) I swapped Trade Gothic (a paid typeface that is, however, downloadable for free on Windows) with Public Sans (a free and open-source typeface).

14 Mar 2024 update: I only recently realised that Avenir Next LT has been included in Microsoft Office since 2019, so I’ve now added my favourite pairings for this typeface as well.

26 Mar 2024 update: Since I added Avernir Next LT as the seventh sans serif typeface on this list, to balance things out I added Source Serif as the seventh serif.