Some typefaces can make designers break out into a cold sweat. Just look at the endless debate over Comic Sans or Saturday Night Live's pillory of Avatar's infamous Papyrus logo.
But it's not only novelty typefaces that earn designers' opprobrium. Many fonts that are often seen as dependable, neutral fallbacks might not be as solid as people think. A web design studio has just revealed its "ten most-hated fonts", and they might surprise you.
See our pick of the best free fonts if you need alternatives, or it might be time to invest in some typefaces from MyFonts.
The digital design and development studio Kraam's most-hated fonts in web design include such staples as Arial, Tahoma and Times New Roman: not because they're gimmicky but because they’re too familiar and often used without considering their subtle impact on readability, perception and user experience.
The studio has sought to explain its aversion by analysing the typefaces in detail, scoring each one against five key design criteria: proportions (balance and readability of letter shapes), stroke consistency (control and consistency of the line weight), apertures and spacing (how open and easy the characters are to read), distinguishability (how clearly similar characters can be told apart) and Structural consistency (how well the font works as a cohesive system).
The typefaces were scored out of 10 in each category for a maximum of 50 points. In the conclusion, many of the same issues come up repeatedly: cramped spacing, inconsistent proportions or an outdated feel, all of which can create a subconscious impact on the user.
01. Arial Narrow
Bottom of the pile is Arial Narrow, with a score of just 30 out of 50. Kraam's design team says the typeface's compressed character width limits the natural spacing that the eye relies on to scan text comfortably. This makes text look cramped, which can be detrimental when it comes to the experience of reading long passages on a website.
On smaller screens, the lack of spacing can cause characters to blur together, increasing effort and reducing clarity, both of which can impact engagement and time on page, Kraam warns.
Microsoft Sans Serif
Microsoft Sans Serif barely scores any better with just 31 points out of 50. The designers argue that its proportions and spacing lack refinement and make the typeface appear slightly unbalanced.
The team also suggest that the fact it was designed for older system environments can create an impact on the perceived quality of a website, making it feel dated or less polished.
Century Gothic
Scoring just a point higher is Century Gothic. The designers warn that its near-perfect circles and uniform strokes reduce the distinction between individual letterforms, which can create a feeling of repetition that makes text harder to process quickly. Its wide proportions also mean fewer words per line, which increases scroll depth and can break reading flow, especially on mobile.
4. Tahoma
Tahoma's sturdy letterforms and relatively tight spacing can create a dense appearance that lacks the openness that aids comfortable reading over longer stretches of text, Kraam says. This can feel overwhelming on content-heavy web pages, making text blocks feel visually heavy. It gets 33 points.
5. Arial
Arial has a reputation as a dependable neutral system font that's safe to fall back on for a wide range of uses when you want a clean, readable sans serif. But the designers warn that its versatility makes Arial feel generic and visually unremarkable, while it also lacks "subtle characteristics that help guide the eye or create rhythm across text".
The other typefaces analysed are Trebuchet MS (35/50), whose inconsistency is deemed to "subtly disrupt reading flow" and the classic serif Times New Roman (36/50), seen as a good choice for print use but criticised for creating friction when scanning on a website.
Vendana (37/50) is praised for its large x-height and generous spacing but judged to occupy more space than necessary, while Georgia (38/50) is seen as dated-looking. Candara (39/50) is slightly more highly rated but deemed to lack personality.
While some of the gripes might seem minor, the choice of typeface can have a significant influence on how users experience a website, including whether they trust its content and whether they stay on the site or leave.
“Typography is one of the most important parts of digital design because it directly affects how people consume information," Kraam’s Senior Designer, Keith Blues, says. "If text is hard to read or feels visually off, users won’t spend time figuring out why – they’ll just disengage."
He recommends testing typography across devices and screen sizes and prioritising open spacing and clear letterforms to ensure readability. Generally, he suggests avoiding condensed fonts for body text, mixing conflicting styles or defaulting to system fonts without considering brand identity.
You can see full details on the Kraam website.
Creative Bloq is now easier to access than ever before with our on-the-go app, which brings you all the content you know and love from our website, but in a super-streamlined design.
Download the Creative Bloq app for iOS
Download the Creative Bloq app for Android
