3 thoughts on “Complete deconstruction of the San Francisco font”

1. Nice overview.

2. Sorry, but I’ll never see the word ‘San Francisco font’ without seeing this in my head :

   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:San_Francisco_(1984_typeface)#/media/File:San_Francisco_sample.png

3. “So is San Francisco really the perfect system font for Apple’s products? It’s complicated.”

   No, it really isn’t complicated. Not while you’re genuinely asking if it’s “the perfect system font.” Not by a long shot.

   “Unfortunately San Francisco has some of the same failings as Helvetica and Lucida Grande in mixed case settings.”

   Try “most of the same failings as Helvetica,” period. Lucida Grande at least has some helpful stroke-width variation, which gives it noticeably better legibility at small sizes on a screen. I still use it in some customizable apps when I can.

   But Helvetica was a major leap backward for users, on the same level as some of Microsoft’s past design choices for Windows. Most people might not notice it’s taking them longer to parse a large amount of text set in it, but it is. Style over function; a sad demonstration of the oblivious lack of awareness Ive has for real-world user needs.

   San Francisco was a baby step forward, if you’re wearing baby shoes. Sorry, Mr. Keppol, but all the modern typographic features in the world—including optical sizing and custom tracking—can make up for the major problem of having a base design that sets text in yet another monocolor mass of blandness. Those alternate numerals help a bit, but they’re not enough.

   I genuinely wish Ive had swallowed his pride and consulted the great Erik Spiekermann for this enormously important part of the products’ UI. There’s really no excuse to not have gone with the best designer for the job, even at a company that’s determined to do everything in-house.

   Finally, the article itself contained a more-than-noticeable number of typographical errors. Which, considering the subject matter, makes me sad.