Comment by tobr
1 year ago
All true, except it’s not really a Whitney clone. It’s Source Sans very lightly adjusted to match Whitney’s metrics. It looks and feels exactly like Source Sans to me. It’s a little strange to present it as a prestigious project with a minisite like this.
Source Sans is nice and easy to read, but so overused it’s rarely a good starting point for a visual identity.
https://nebulasans.com/img/handgloves.png
I saw that. Here's a quick similar comparison between Nebula Sans and Source Sans I just whipped up: https://imgur.com/JPwgYkj
It's more about overall look and feel, which in large part comes from the glyph proportions (the x-height), spacing and weights - https://i.imgur.com/mygqn3H.png
Glyph proportions between Whitney and Nebula are almost identical. As are their weights. Source Sans is substantially heavier and more dense looking.
While individual glyphs may be closer between Nebula and Source Sans, but the overall feel of Nebula is that of Whitney.
1 reply →
So, it's worse than Source Sans because it removed the differentiation between a lowercase L and an uppercase i.
I'd rather use Source Sans then.
1 reply →
The two typefaces couldn't look more different. Look at the stroke cuts on the ascenders of the 'd', 'l', the stroke cuts on the 'a', 'e', and 's'.
Is there some online tool for comparing fonts that way?
I’m wondering why they’ve added the slanted top on ‘t’, but not the other letters: https://nebula.tv/videos/nebula-sans?t=363
They're very upfront about it on the page:
> The majority of the adjustments we made were to adapt the metrics of Source Sans to better match those of Whitney SSm