{"id":407,"date":"2017-07-17T16:35:21","date_gmt":"2017-07-17T16:35:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.embl.org\/about\/info\/communications\/?p=407"},"modified":"2021-10-11T11:56:07","modified_gmt":"2021-10-11T11:56:07","slug":"selecting-a-new-typeface-for-embl-fira","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.embl.org\/about\/info\/communications\/blog\/2017\/07\/selecting-a-new-typeface-for-embl-fira\/","title":{"rendered":"Selecting a new typeface for EMBL: Fira"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

[This blog post was penned by the entire team that took part in the first Corporate Design sprint<\/a>]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We have been using Helvetica Neue as EMBL’s official typeface for some time now. We wanted to test whether this is the best and most sustainable choice for the organisation moving forward. There are few fonts as iconic as the Helvetica family, but it also comes with baggage:

Too popular:<\/strong> Helvetica has been used everywhere from the New York Transit Authority, to American Airlines, to Lufthansa. It\u2019s so familiar and ubiquitous that it is somewhat voiceless and utilitarian. It adds no value to the EMBL brand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Licensing:<\/strong> Many computers come bundled with Helvetica. But not Helvetica Neue, so we\u2019ve had buy licenses to use it on our many print products, websites, and service websites. Using Helvetica Neue is expensive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Readability:<\/strong> The different weights of Helvetica aren\u2019t the most successful when displaying on screen (not so shocking for a typeface from 1983). Similarities between letterforms (1, l, i, ll, for example), and low contrast between the stroke weights in each letterform, make readability a problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Browser woes:<\/strong> Helvetica Neue doesn\u2019t render well on Windows. Or screens for that matter. This was the driving decision for Apple to move away from Helvetica Neue on iOS to their own typeface, San Francisco.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Confusion between Helveticas:<\/strong> The many flavours Helvetica comes in causes confusion: Helvetica, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica Neue pro, Helvetica rounded…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In short, we have a problem with our current typeface. It\u2019s not surprising, therefore, that an organic conversation began about what we need in a typeface. Here’s from the EMBL-EBI Web Guidelines Committee at the start of 2017:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Feeding back in some recent conversation at the January Web Guidelines Committee and with our colleagues at EMBL; want in future a font that has:\n \u2022 A variety of weights and styles (light, ultra-light, bold, italic, etc.)\n \u2022 Support for foreign characters (You guessed it: I'm looking at \u00fc). Also for non-Latin script, e.g. Greek, for scientific notations\n \u2022 Consistent rendering across the many devices\/browsers\n \u2022 Looks good at small sizes (so we can use it for data tables and visualisations)\n \u2022 Not too radical a deviation from Helvetica (using a serif as the primary font is likely not an option as it would blow up too many applications)\n \u2022 Huge bonus points for a liberal or open source license\n \u2022 Nice if the font has a little personality (Helvetica, for example, is very generic and does not make our \"brand\" more recognisable)\n harmonising with Helvetica (the font in the logo)\n \u2022 Bonus points for: working well in print, being a font family which offers sans serif and serif font styles and being a highly legible, scannable font<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
All of these are great criteria for guiding our choice. For us, the need for a typeface that could work across our content, whether in digital or print, was more than a bonus point – it’s one of our design principles<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this first design sprint we tested many fonts, but none really stuck. These include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n