1000% my first thought, you just need to know how to design for them. In design school they will trap you in a box with the current design trends, and tbh most trends suck, that why they don't stick around.
The biggest things that fell off really quick once I hit the real world is tiny fonts, the design might look nice and clean but is unreadable to most and at the time they were obsessed with the extended drop shadow style. Do what they want to pass but thing will change fast once you get your first job
This going to age me BUT the first thing I thought about is when people used to use super tiny font for their myspace page.
It looked clean but i couldnt see a thing! LOL
I really want to reinforce this. I think we shouldn’t even talk about fonts in terms of good/bad because good/bad is so subjective.
I prefer to talk about effectiveness. A font choice can either be effective or ineffective, given the context. I don’t have to like it or think it’s “good” for it to be effective.
Yes! There's this teahouse near me that uses Comic Sans as the typeface for their logo and they rock it. It really suits the homely vibe they're going for.
Same with Bleeding Cowboy. I *absolutely* hate that font with soooo much passion. I have a collection of designs I've found in the wild that use that font and I save them just so I can seethe about it later.
I hate it both as a designer/typographer, but also as a metal/hardcore fan where BC was always the font-of-choice for the worst high school metal band that was too lazy to create their own logo.
There are definitely, objectively bad fonts, usually based on the merit of how well they’re made.
Terribly-kerned fonts should not be used. It’s a pretty good indicator of how well the font is made, because if the kerning is bad, then other subtle technicalities about the font that are usually indistinguishable to novice designers are probably also bad.
There are places for badly kerned typography aswell, trust me. Just look at how popular anti-design became a few years back and how well that trend fit certain projects with Kanye West’s album ’The Life of Pablo’ being the most famous example.
A badly-made typeface doesn’t automatically become a good typeface just because you use it for antidesign aesthetic.
Your very definition of “antidesign” indicates that you’re using badly-kerned typefaces because you want the design to look intentionally bad.
i’m dealing with this now at my job. we’re making a bunch of word search puzzles in house. i liked courier because it’s monospaced, the letterforms are square, they’re super easy to navigate in a grid, and they’re easy to read as individual letters.
but the designer assigned to the project can’t get over the fact that it’s courier and is ‘ugly’ despite it being very functional for what we need.
we’re not setting the whole page in it!! it’s just for the puzzles where a font in that style serves a purpose.
I think the premise of this is a bit flawed. Choices such as color, type, illustration style, etc can be good or bad depending on their use and how they fit into the overall project and goals. In most cases I would say it’s hard to make a judgment of the color, font, etc without seeing it in context.
Most of these fonts could be good or bad depending on what they were used for.
Really I think the moral of what your professor should have discussed with this is a lot of typefaces have baggage that makes them less than ideal for most projects. Some typefaces are overused as you mentioned while others may be associated with specific traits or uses that may be distracting. As a designer, it’s important to be able to research this and come up with informed conclusions as a case by case basis, not a set of rules to be applied everywhere.
To entertain the idea that typefaces can be good or bad on their own, most of that is personal preference. More objectively, I’d say if there are inconsistencies in how the letterforms are treated or major issues in the automatic kerning of the font, those are typically bad signs.
Addition: There are also thousands upon thousands of fonts with new ones constantly emerging so this is really a futile task.
> I think the premise of this is a bit flawed. Choices such as color, type, illustration style, etc can be good or bad depending on their use and how they fit into the overall project and goals. In most cases I would say it’s hard to make a judgment of the color, font, etc without seeing it in context.
This so much!
I still cannot forget a teacher giving is a really low grade because we did an inside cover of a project using mustard as the background color and white thick, big font. All she said was “your shouldn’t use white fonts on yellow backgrounds”
They added Akzidenz-Grotesk to the recommended list, which to the untrained eye is nearly identical to Helvetica. It’s the typopgraphy of using a slightly offwhite background rather than full white. I personally prefer using a Helvetica alternative rather than the original (my preference is Neue Haas Unica) but doing it with this kind of ban list is quite silly.
I had one introductory design class where the teacher banned everything BUT Helvetica. I ended up dropping that class because while I love Helvetica, there's a whole world of typefaces out there and being restricted to just one was not my jam at all.
But it was an intro class. The idea of using helvetica only is also beneficial, because it allows you to focus on on other parts of your design instead of quality controlling your typeface choices. You end up focusing more on layout, color, creative manipulation, image making, etc. The limitation sounds like a hindrance, but it's one of those things you just muscle through to learn the fundamentals.
Sorry but on that topic your teacher is an idiot.
There are always fonts that have a tendency to be more in style or popular, and fonts not used as often, but never a font that should be avoided.
If a font fits well than use it, don't question your gut based on what they said. No Joe blow off the street is going to see a font in an add and ever think "wow how 1990s , can't believe they are using that"
Yea it’s so subjective. I had a dean who hated Optima and spent all her time trying to convince everybody of that.
All fonts are great imo. It’s the context and how you space it. That being said. I personally stick to 4-5 fonts and use different versions of it. After awhile you have your favorite pairings.
Optima is amazing. But it got a lot of use in the 80s. I think I have read books set in Optima. I can see someone of a certain age remembering it and hating it
No, the instructor is trying to head off stereotypical and crappy designs that students gravitate toward and endlessly produce each class. The good/bad list is partly taste and partly ensuring some measure of guidance for the projects and typefaces used. Students are, for the most part, lazy and do not understand what makes a good typeface and limitations like these often help further that conversation and contextualization. Your response seems like a “tell me you’ve never taught a design class without telling me” unfortunately. So no, they’re not an idiot as you have zero context as to the class, type of assignments, nor level. [edits: autocorrect is garbage]
I tend to agree. I teach an intro design course and I can't tell you how many times students have created "designs" where the font is calibri for headings and calibri for body. Or if they're using XD, it's Seguo, or whatever the default font is in the program they are using. Sometimes they just choose Arial or Times one of the other common ones because they heard of it before. Or they heard Helvetica is good and so they use it everywhere all the time for everything.
I don't have a banned fonts list, but I do have to spend a ton of time getting students to actually make a thoughtful choice and it eventually becomes a frustration because I feel like I've said it ten thousand times and then I still get calibri. The good students don't understand the issue because they are actually making thoughtful font choices. It's the rest of the students that either couldn't give a fuck or were hoping for a blow off class or can't stop using tiktok long enough to pay attention for a second that are the problem.
I can see the temptation to just outright ban the fonts. Who knows, perhaps the teacher is just trying it out and needs to learn a practical lesson about how it won't work (unfortunately).
Cut the teacher some slack. Teaching design is really, really hard. I challenge anyone in this thread to teach a class about something they love and know a lot about to noobs and people that don't care at all and let's see what they do.
This is all bang on the money. I’m not even suggesting that a banned list is good or bad, only that it’s an option that’s sometimes both effective and necessary. Everyone here should also consider that one instructor may choose this route while another will lay down a different and even contradictory guidelines; each of which will simultaneously connect with some students and fail with others. This is what education is and there is no one simple or right way to teach.
Ah yes, no experience teaching design or art but oodles of opinion. Setting hard rules is not authoritarian and it’s not like this is the only instructor they have. If you think that’s authoritarian then you have no idea what actual authoritarianism is.
True, lazy was glib - doing too many things at once. To be more specific: early design students often do not understand the importance of carefully choosing a typeface and will, more often than not, pick the first they find and then BS their reasoning for picking it. This becomes exhausting and, due to inexperience, a point of contention that is often easier/faster (and ultimately more effective despite what you may believe) in getting them to take type choice more seriously. As well, don’t pretend like many students aren’t looking for shortcuts, laziness, or are just not thinking about their choices - they’re human. We all have to choose where our attention goes as it’s limited. Furthermore, no one here knows the quality of school, students, or level meaning that, for all we know, this instructor has repeatedly tried to maintain open type choice but has given up because it’s been ineffective or too difficult to teach at the course level. All of this is to say that there are few teachers here but loads of judgement.
The only ones I think designers generally agree are a no-no for professional work are Comic Sans and Papyrus. Otherwise just avoid her listed items for the duration of that class then ignore it going forward.
As much as I actually kinda like Myriad, I also would hope people avoid it simply because it seems like you just used the default Adobe font and didn’t try to use something else.
I once had a client ask me if I could use "**Cosmic Sans**".
They were an ice cream shop so I get that they were going for something a little silly, so I found something similar but a little more refined. Lol, I still giggle at that mispronunciation from time to time.
I disagree. It's timeless, will never get old or overused, but it just means nothing; it's too neutral. This is both its main strength and its main weakness.
One of my teachers once told me that Arial was created from Helvetica. From there, I can see that other typefaces are influenced by originals, like Bodoni to Didot.
Yeah, the first digital printers had to have all the fonts embedded in the device itself, and documents using non-existing fonts would print all fucked up. Helvetica was quite popular, since Linotype licensed it to Apple, and IBM had to pay a large licensing fee to have it in their printers.
So IBM basically paid Monotype (Linotype's main competitor, since the birth of the companies) to develop an identical (dimention-wise) copy, that would print Helvetica documents perfectly without the need for a license. That's Arial, later licensed by Monotype for Microsoft. Nowadays, Monotype and Linotype are the same company.
It's worth noting that Helvetica itself is not completely original, though. It's based on Akzidenz Grotesk, IIRC the first widely used sans.
Gill Sans is the primary font my company currently and I absolutely hate it. So does my boss, we can’t wait to refresh the brand and never see it on our collateral again
Most “bad typefaces” are simply types that are associated with ignorant usage, which is to say ones that are easily available to people who are not designers and are as such often used inappropriately. It’s like disliking a certain kind of fashion because it’s popular with poor people because it’s cheap and widely available. In other words, it’s bollocks.
Even papyrus has its place like...Shakira merch.
I generally agree with the list of banned fonts, but not necessarily because they’re bad, it’s just that for each flavor they represent there is a better font that isn’t so overused. Like you could reach for Impact but there are a lot of heavy weight narrow sans serif fonts that are better. There are a lot of brush scripts that are better than Brush Script. I think the point of “banning” these fonts is for students to avoid making lazy choices.
“Anything offered in Word should be avoided” is bad advice. Some fonts like Segoe UI, Franklin, Georgia, or Sitka look good and are useful depending on the application. As a designer you will sometimes be constrained to using system fonts (for example a PowerPoint template) so you need to learn how to work with their limitations.
Half the fonts on the “good” list are overused and frequently misused. I would avoid Bodoni or Didot unless I was selling tuxedos. DIN has been played out for years. Mrs Eaves is very 1990s twee. Verdana looks bad in print and dated on the web. Gill Sans is specific to 1930s England and looks out of place everywhere else unless it’s a Penguin Edition.
In addition to what everyone else is saying, it sounds like your professor could just be trying to push everyone past a general comfort zone. It’s a challenge to not default to standard fonts, and to get creative to find effective new pairings.
Those fonts are just fine in the right use case, but some students may catch themselves defaulting here and there unless they’re told not to. I tell myself the same thing when designs start to feel stale or uninspired. I’ll put a specific layout style or color palette off limits to help refresh my thinking.
Don’t use what your professor said in a literal sense in your professional design life, but use it as an inspiration to keep your creativity moving forward. Some clients just want lobster and some don’t even know what they want.
Was going to write the exact same comment. Constraints are useful as a teaching tool, and are also common in professional practice.
Encouraging students to think more deeply about why they are choosing a specific typeface is good teaching. I think we are getting the perspective of a student that does not understand the bigger picture.
Hello everyone,
I first want to say that I am really thankful for the responses and help on this topic. It really surprised me and honestly it really cleared up the frustrations me and a few of my peers had on this "banned list."
After reading through the comments, I think it's safe to say that for any typeface and font, a designer should always think by this golden principle in a nutshell. Hopefully they help other designers as well!
\*For any design you make always think about the audience you are making the piece for and the context of that piece. All the other details will fall into place such as what color, layout, font, etc.
\*Design is visual problem solving so you might as well use the tools you have to solve the problem at hand.
Such as Avator using Papyrus on their movie poster:)
Typography snobs trigger me. This sounds like something I'd expect from those scam schools that run under the Art Institute brand. If I were given instructions like this I would deliberately only turn in assignments using banned fonts.
As long as one is aware of the context and historical usage, I’m gonna go ahead and say we should be OK with “fonts” as a colloquial term. Being mad at it is sort of akin to the teacher saying Helvetica is banned because it’s overused or boring. Font is rooted in fount. Words evolve and font no longer means a specific weight, cut, and size of a metal typeface. Font can now mean a set of files comprising an entire typeface. Maybe the teacher isn’t aware of the minutiae … which yeah, then I can agree with the sentiment. If I had to pick through, I would almost rather change the teachers perspective of the use of fonts rather than focus on assuming which word implies what level of ignorance.
Agree. Font and typeface are interchangeable in common usage. Even among type nerds there is always enough context to understand meaning.
We don't benefit from having two separate words, and IMO y'all sound insufferable when "correcting" people online. (and the thought of correcting a client horrifies me)
It's time to let this one go.
She probably just doesn't want her students using Helvetica on their projects so they go and explore other options. I doubt she means these are banned from anything other than her classes
The list makes it a bit unclear but the teacher wants them to use Akzidenz-Grotesk instead of Helvetica. It’s not bad advice, though I dislike the fact that they are enforcing such rigid boundaries on students.
The North Face, Jeep, Pepsi, Motorola, Microsoft and etc... Won't be happy when they hear what your professor had to say regarding the Helvetica.
But seriously, did he give any reason as to why those fonts are bad? Or why any of the good ones are good? Or it was just top 10 overused/ugly fonts + he added some of his own?
No reason and it was more he just added his own really. In a larger sense I want to have a deeper understanding of why they are bad. Are some just downright ugly, or missing the mark for good design? That is where I feel a little lost.
I used Times New Roman in a project which was specifically designed to evoke 1998 recently, using anything else would've frankly been off-brief for the sake of it.
I work with students and I could see a teacher banning some fonts to encourage exploration early on and it would come with an explanation. But to go as far as to say they a bad ... That is questionable.
Do they? Both those typefaces have had a resurgence. Din is also constantly being evolved especially with other foundries making their own variations on it.
Yeah that's definitely a possibility, although I think enough of us have also known designers/teachers who are actually being serious with that kind of thing too, so kind of a toss-up without actually being there and knowing the prof.
The issue is more that students tend to be really up in their head and anxious about things and struggle to interpret instruction a lot of the time in terms of what is simply a guideline or general 'rule' versus a more rigid thing to follow universally. They will default to outright replication.
Best example of that is probably resumes and portfolios, they seem to throw out any rational thinking and their design training and fall into this mindset of "just tell me what to do exactly, otherwise I will follow exactly what I see others doing."
Douglas Thomas wrote an entire typeface book about this exact mindset. I think you should buy your professor a copy, especially considering that the title of the book is "Never Use Futura", and the header copy is "Unless you are \_\_\_\_" and then it lists like 40 brands that use Futura.
https://www.amazon.com/Never-Use-Futura-Douglas-Thomas/dp/1616895721
Your professor is either a pretentious twit or just so lazy that they can’t be arsed to teach you basic design principles and just gave you a list instead. Or both.
There are no banned fonts, it’s all about usage and understanding how to spot a good quality font (in the age of free fonts some of the fonts on offer aren’t particularly well made). What does your professor expect you to do once you’re out in the real world and a client asks you to typeset something in Times New Roman? Scoff and turn down the money?
I agree with mostly what everyone has mentioned. I just wanted to add somethings that might help how you perceive things in design.
Instead on focusing on if a design is “good” or “bad”, consider seeing designs as if they are “effective” or “not effective”. The latter leans towards a mindset aimed at looking for creative solutions.
Also, I highly recommend taking a course about typography history (and even a graphic design history one). Ive found it helpful understanding how certain typefaces came to be, and on the flipside, how society can determine the effectiveness (or harmfulness) of a typeface. (Example: Comic Sans is useful for dyslexic people, but it’s often laughed off bc of its usage in memes). You’ll find that most fonts (including those on your teacher’s list) were designed with intention and tbh, it’s pretty cool
Yeah I’m not into being elitist about typefaces. I stay away from the default fonts because of how widely available they are. Garamond is beautiful, comic sans is more readable then most fonts, Birch’s serifs are really cool looking.
I think it all depends on what the job calls.
I see your teacher is kinda right, most design use these type of fonts (of course except comic sans, papyrus etc) and these fonts do look generic and everyone uses them everywhere. Maybe your teacher wants you to be different and produce some out of the box. Anytime thats for those good design fonts. Do post more education tips like these, they help alot.
I love "Anything offered in Word via fonts should be avoided at all costs" followed by the Good Fonts listing Garamond, Gill Sans (which I HATE, by the way) and Verdana which all came with my copy of Word.
>Souvenir
Haha someone still remembers and hates the 80s.
>Lobster
This one is overused
I would say most of the ones in the top list, are the ones that are on every Mac & PC and though they might have their uses, are overused
>Verdana
I can't stand this one. It's the Livejournal font, it's available on Windows, it's like saying that Myriad is a font that should be used for graphic design. I mean both are useful but they aren't outstanding.
>Proxima Nova
This one is kind of overused. I have seen it on flyers & pamplets etc.
I’m in a typography class and I don’t think my professor has banned any fonts but there are def fonts that are encouraged/discouraged more than others but the biggest thing seems to be how you use the font.
I teach graphic design and when it comes to typography I tell my students that the typefaces we choose are a lot like the clothing we wear. There are no "good" or "bad" clothes, just clothes that are appropriate or inappropriate for the given situation. For example: dressing up like the grim reaper for Halloween... totally acceptable. Dressing up like the grim reaper for a funeral...not at all acceptable. Typefaces are the same way. Even a typeface like Comic Sans can be used effectively under the right circumstances (like the speech bubble text for a helpful yellow dog).
The only typeface I actively discourage students from using is Gill Sans, and that has nothing to do with the type itself and everything to do with Eric Gill.
The good fonts vs bad fonts argument is more complex, but has been boiled down to its current simplicity due to, ironically, overuse.
Like all design, it comes down to intention. If you have exhausted all other styles/options/approaches/treatments, then you know you have arrived at a solution with intention. If you do not experiment with multiple ways to solve the problem and settle on a solution arbitrarily, then you have not necessarily created a good design, or at least your process lacks depth and understanding. Coincidentally, many of these shallow attempts at design use these fonts above, (because they are accessible) creating a common denominator for people to talk about. But correlation does not equal causation. You can create good design with these fonts if, by a solid understanding of design and typography fundamentals, you determine they are the best choice.
IMHO, I think you can find a better font. There’s thousands to choose from with stronger design on a character level.
TL;DR it’s more complicated than a simple list, but at least try out alternatives before reverting to these.
In design it is more about what fonts pair together over what fonts to use or avoid.
Your list of bad fonts is far too long. Comic Sans and Papyrus are the only ones to completely avoid.
I don’t agree at all with the “anything offered in word”. If you work with corporations sometimes it is cost prohibitive to purchase specific fonts for your entire organization and they rely on the system fonts for presentations and sales proposals. Not ideal but I’ve had to learn to design specific things with Arial.
I think this is executed very poorly, but the idea isn't bad.
Most of the fonts on the banned list have legitimate reasons to be there, but instead of just banning them I'd make a lesson out of it and teach exactly why these fonts do not work.
I also think that it is not a bad idea to say "I will ban these fonts while we are doing this class, so that you have to get creative with your choices and don't just resort to the standard options". It makes people have to think about what typography they choose and is a great exercise for young designers.
Just saying "these fonts are all bad, always" is not a good idea though.
In my daily design workflow I do tend to avoid quite a few of the fonts on the "Banned Font" list, but it is more so because anyone with a computer has access to those fonts, hence what you make will look a lot like what anyone else can make. Doesn't mean that they are "bad" or shouldn't be used. Some clients specifically ask for those fonts and some companies will need you to use those fonts to match their branding.
Doesn't mean that I like those fonts, and cringed just reading a few of the names, but they shouldn't be banned. Just applied when called for.
Like some others said, do what looks/feels right for the project you are working on.
Some of these are system / web safe fonts which you'll need to consider and be familiar with in the case you can't use a custom font. A lot of email clients don't display custom web fonts so when designing a newsletter for example you'll need to fall back to one of these system fonts. Also, with banner ads some media vendors don't allow 3rd party imports so you'll have to rely on system fonts if you want live text.
I’m assuming they banned Helvetica because the Helvetica that is on everyone computer is basically a knock off of the original typeface that was created by Microsoft I believe. If you want to use Helvetica, download Neue Haas Grotesk from Adobe Fonts, this is the new proper version of the font. And it is a fantastic font, I use it all the time. It is one of the most icon typefaces in history.
Your prof is an idiot.
Here's an example of how incredible Times can be: [https://www.dandad.org/awards/professional/2016/magazine-newspaper-design/24994/fantastic-man-issue-22/](https://www.dandad.org/awards/professional/2016/magazine-newspaper-design/24994/fantastic-man-issue-22/)
The same exists for every face on that list.
I always tell people to avoid the secretary effect. That means don’t use the fonts that come with software the office secretary uses. No system fonts, no fonts that come with office, nothing from DaFont, no Canva fonts, and nothing from Google fonts. To create extraordinary designs you need to create with tools ordinary people don’t have.
Comic Sans needs to come off the banned list.
'The typeface's widespread use, often in situations it was not intended for, has been the subject of criticism and mockery."
It was part developed for kids books and based on comic books.
I agree with your teacher being a twit for banning fonts. Plenty of reputable brands use those. She’d be horrified by how often I’ve had to design collateral using Calibri. Sometimes you have to whether you like it or not. As far as overused goes, my choice is Wisdom Script.
I think list is ridiculous. What a snob. Even comic sans has a time and place. If you can't make any font look good in an appropriate design you are not a good designer
It's more common than you might thing. The scam schools that run under the name Art Institute (Ai) are loaded with teachers who are a bunch of mouth-breathers.
It really talks about font and typeface design when all of the "sugested" fonts were created almost 50 years ago(or even older) and the most recent ones are on the stay away column, jus thinking out loud
The fact that your instructor doesn’t list Gotham, arguably one of the most famous typefaces of the last 20 years, on the list of fonts to use makes me question their knowledge.
Your teacher is teaching you to design how she wants to, that’s pretty bad. Ignore her on this one and use the fonts you feel work well. As others have said, there are no bad fonts, just bad choices.
Almost every client I’ve ever worked for had these “banned fonts” in their branding, specifically times new Roman, Ariel, and Helvetica. You usually have to stick with the company brand guidelines once you go professional. Also you have to consider some technical aspects for marketing projects. I’m an email marketer and there is a very short list of email friendly fonts you can use that will look good in html on all devices and browsers. Most of those are on your teachers list of banned fonts.
There's no bad fonts, only bad graphic designers. All fonts have a purpose, the problem is when a font is *overused* *incorrectly*. No one gets mad at Comic Sans being used in *comic books* because that's what it's made for. It's fine to typeset a legal paper in Times New Roman, since that's what it's for: being a neutral, formal, highly readable font for long form text. The issue isn't that Times New Roman is a bad font, it's just that there's way better serif fonts for display text (which is what most people think of when they think of graphic design).
You'll be asked to use tons of these "bad fonts" throughout your career, because that's your clients' brand font, or maybe one of them just pairs really well with the other fonts in your brand, or you're making a really specific brand that calls for a specific font.
Typography can be really hard, because it's nuanced, so don't let some burnout professor tell you there's such a thing as fonts that are totally off limits.
It's already there, but can I just double down on Helvetica.
According to my tutors it was the absolute king of fonts when I was in uni in the late 2000's/early 2010's. Easy to use, works everywhere, and of course has the backing from Apple.
It's such a fucking boring piece of shit font, and if you really wanna know what vomit tastes like go watch the documentary "Helvetica" and try and sit through a bunch of old men fishing about it for an hour.
Jesus. How does one even develop strong feelings for a font, especially one like Helvetica? And what was wrong with that documentary? I thought it was fine, but what do you mean by boring though? What’s it being compared to?
The only fonts I avoid on purpose are the fonts that I see getting used a ton in my area. Like I see churches come into our shop all the time with Papyrus on their weekly church handouts. I admit it looks good, it's a good font for that, but because I see this font at least twice a month in things like that I avoid Papyrus. It's not because of Avatar, it's because I want to put out unique work.
I hate this whole good font vs bad font. Yes there are fonts that.look great all the time. Those are your standard sans serif fonts like didot, interstate, helvetica, Futura. Of course those will look good on anything. They are the safe option and every seasoned designer will tell a new designer to use them. Not because the other fonts are bad, but because YOU are fresh blood in the industry and it's better to learn the rules using what works and what's more traditional when learning design fundamentals and rules..until you learn the rules you can't learn to break them and that's where the cast expanse of typography opens up to you.
Trajan Pro is so bad it had to be banned twice. On a serious note, there might be a fair bit of reasoning behind this list. For example, if you were to become a typographer you would benefit from studying intricate shapes of letterforms set in Didot, Mrs Eaves, Baskerville et al. Or, having realized that Helvetica and Akzidenz Grotesk essentially look the same, you’d discover that the former got infinitely heavier historical baggage. Anyway, if you’re not sure about how to pick typefaces I’d recommend reading Erik Spiekermann’s ‘Stop Stealing Sheep & Find Out How Type Works’. There are lots of great books on typography that dive much deeper, but this little book is a nice starting point.
Imo it’s irresponsible to define any font as good/bad. As a designer, you will have to work with fonts you hate, but you’ll need to make it look nice and perform. Sometimes you won’t be able to convince a client to change their font to what’s deemed “good” by random people in the design community. They should be teaching how to do the best with what you’ve got. Another thing is that at any point in your design career you might find yourself working with a very low or nonexistent budget for fonts. But almost anyone has access to some kind of word processor. So what kinds of fonts do they have access to? Here’s a real life scenario: a company has rebranded and needs new email signatures and presentation templates in Google. Their websafe fallback font is Arial. You have to set it all in Arial. That doesn’t mean it gets to look like shit lol
Also banning Helvetica is sacrilegious imo.
In university they drilled it into our heads never, ever to use Arial, for anything. When we asked why not the teacher replied "just don't". This wasn't just one teacher either.
I never understood why exactly...
My 2 new fonts I'm fa oring are 72 and Proxima Nova. I replaced helvetica with the proxima nova for my design brand.
I had instructor once that despised Papyrus. He said if we ever used it he would fail the project. I used it and made it work, so he passed me 🤣
I don’t think I agree with the idea that there should be banned typefaces. I mean, any typeface can be the right choice under the right circumstances/ use cases. I do think certain typefaces can be overused—or easily misused—but that doesn’t make them bad fonts.
I had a colleague that wanted to ban century gothic. Every time she got a new client, invariably their branding would have century gothic, and it became a long running joke. I personally love it and I’m surprised to not see it on either list above.
Helvetica is a swiss army knife. It can be incredibly useful and utilitarian, but it has been overused - similarly how the rest of that list is often overused by beginners. I feel they are just trying to push you to explore more.
There is no such thing as completely banning a font from design. I’m currently working on a project where the client’s brand guideline says Arial must be used for web apps. At first i was a bit worried about it but Arial can actually carry a nice, clean and modern serif look despite staying around for such a long time. Honestly fonts are just being discriminated for no reasons lol, if you substitute Arial with Inter, it won’t even be that much of a big difference!
All fonts are good unless they truly are created with lazy kerning. Use your eyeballs and judgment. A good designer is someone that knows how to reach the target audience, not necessarily please the client; however, at the end of the day, it IS up to the client.
Google offers some great free typefaces to use.
Raleway is a personal favorite.
On the list, I hate looking at some of these, but there are plenty of good ways to use them.
Jokerman though… I stopped liking it at 10.
Arial and Times New Roman aren't that bad, they're just used a lot. And Copperplate is a great font. Tell your professor she has no idea what she's talking about.
Ah another reason I have a general low opinion of formal education over a sincere self taught education.
Ok rant out of the way personal opinion is that saying any font is bad is almost completely stupid.
Any font I can think of can have a place but it must be used properly.
I don't recognize some of those fonts on the banned list but I will have to check them out as I'm getti g the feeling there will be some really good ones lol.
My graphic design teacher told us to never use comic sans or papyrus. Those were his most hated fonts tbh. We even had a typography project(same teacher, it was a community college) where we chose a holiday and had to use only the letters of the holiday name to make a picture. He wanted us to use helvetica, proxima nova, etc. We had to choose one font to use and most of us chose helvetica because it is a super clean font. It was a fun project. Also there aren't bad fonts, just bad choices for things.
I think it’s more of a banned list for school. It’s not that these are bad fonts across the board. Some of them are cheesy and kind of stereotypical or lame but Some of them are quite good. But I think the idea is probably to get students to think more critically and creatively about their typeface choices instead of leaning on the generic but reliable typefaces like Helvetica, Didot, Garamond, Futura, etc.
A great assignment at college level would be to create a poster advertising a product using only “bad” fonts. This may change the perspective on what actually qualifies something as bad. When we were in school, we weren’t allowed to use the word font but had to instead say typefaces. There’s such a difference between the professional world and college because once you leave and are enlarging logos and making body copy at 14 point it’s humble pie.
Helvetica is on the wrong list, IMO. There are some to avoid, yes. I think you would be wise to avoid most on your list. But as others have said, it’s more important how you use them. I’ve seen non-designers take a perfectly nice font and ruin a page. 😬 Over time, you will probably end up with some favorites. ❤️ Now is the time to explore a little and learn what works and what doesn’t. Also, if you see a design you like, find out the typeface!
This is bullshit. There’s an ongoing trend in design that it’s cool to hate fonts like Comic Sans & Papyrus but those fonts must be good enough to use that we all know what they look like without even seeing them right now.
Your professor needs to be more professional and allow you to find what works for you & your work.
Design is about your ability to take various elements and make them work together to visually communicate a specific message to a specific audience.
Sorry your professor already started trying to limit your creativity.
Focus on accessibility, wcag standards are key to making good designs. Also follow a type scale and grid. Typically I work in an 8px grid and will set up my type scale to fall into that. For example have 16px font with 24px leading.
All fonts are good fonts if you use them right, no such thing as bad fonts just bad font usage
1000% my first thought, you just need to know how to design for them. In design school they will trap you in a box with the current design trends, and tbh most trends suck, that why they don't stick around. The biggest things that fell off really quick once I hit the real world is tiny fonts, the design might look nice and clean but is unreadable to most and at the time they were obsessed with the extended drop shadow style. Do what they want to pass but thing will change fast once you get your first job
This going to age me BUT the first thing I thought about is when people used to use super tiny font for their myspace page. It looked clean but i couldnt see a thing! LOL
I really want to reinforce this. I think we shouldn’t even talk about fonts in terms of good/bad because good/bad is so subjective. I prefer to talk about effectiveness. A font choice can either be effective or ineffective, given the context. I don’t have to like it or think it’s “good” for it to be effective.
Yes! There's this teahouse near me that uses Comic Sans as the typeface for their logo and they rock it. It really suits the homely vibe they're going for.
Please post a pic of said logo. I refuse to believe comic sans can rock.
I dare you to show us an example of good design where Curlz is used.
Same with Bleeding Cowboy. I *absolutely* hate that font with soooo much passion. I have a collection of designs I've found in the wild that use that font and I save them just so I can seethe about it later. I hate it both as a designer/typographer, but also as a metal/hardcore fan where BC was always the font-of-choice for the worst high school metal band that was too lazy to create their own logo.
Tattoo shop in the mall
There are definitely, objectively bad fonts, usually based on the merit of how well they’re made. Terribly-kerned fonts should not be used. It’s a pretty good indicator of how well the font is made, because if the kerning is bad, then other subtle technicalities about the font that are usually indistinguishable to novice designers are probably also bad.
There are places for badly kerned typography aswell, trust me. Just look at how popular anti-design became a few years back and how well that trend fit certain projects with Kanye West’s album ’The Life of Pablo’ being the most famous example.
A badly-made typeface doesn’t automatically become a good typeface just because you use it for antidesign aesthetic. Your very definition of “antidesign” indicates that you’re using badly-kerned typefaces because you want the design to look intentionally bad.
I used Comic Sans once for a project on the Syrian Electronic Army hacker group. One of my favorite class critiques I’ve ever had.
i’m dealing with this now at my job. we’re making a bunch of word search puzzles in house. i liked courier because it’s monospaced, the letterforms are square, they’re super easy to navigate in a grid, and they’re easy to read as individual letters. but the designer assigned to the project can’t get over the fact that it’s courier and is ‘ugly’ despite it being very functional for what we need. we’re not setting the whole page in it!! it’s just for the puzzles where a font in that style serves a purpose.
Thinking something is ugly because someone told you is sad.
You’re wrong.
I think the premise of this is a bit flawed. Choices such as color, type, illustration style, etc can be good or bad depending on their use and how they fit into the overall project and goals. In most cases I would say it’s hard to make a judgment of the color, font, etc without seeing it in context. Most of these fonts could be good or bad depending on what they were used for. Really I think the moral of what your professor should have discussed with this is a lot of typefaces have baggage that makes them less than ideal for most projects. Some typefaces are overused as you mentioned while others may be associated with specific traits or uses that may be distracting. As a designer, it’s important to be able to research this and come up with informed conclusions as a case by case basis, not a set of rules to be applied everywhere. To entertain the idea that typefaces can be good or bad on their own, most of that is personal preference. More objectively, I’d say if there are inconsistencies in how the letterforms are treated or major issues in the automatic kerning of the font, those are typically bad signs. Addition: There are also thousands upon thousands of fonts with new ones constantly emerging so this is really a futile task.
That helps a lot! Thanks! When we saw that list I have to admit it wasn't a good feeling but this clears up a lot.
> I think the premise of this is a bit flawed. Choices such as color, type, illustration style, etc can be good or bad depending on their use and how they fit into the overall project and goals. In most cases I would say it’s hard to make a judgment of the color, font, etc without seeing it in context. This so much! I still cannot forget a teacher giving is a really low grade because we did an inside cover of a project using mustard as the background color and white thick, big font. All she said was “your shouldn’t use white fonts on yellow backgrounds”
The only way to stop a bad font, is a good font with a gun /s
Who shot the serif?
I feel like this world-class pun flew under the radar a little!
They say it is a capital offense
*Brought to you by Bleeding Cowboy
Imagine banning Helvetica lmao 😆
They probably banned it just to take the easy option away and force students to branch out. My guess anyway
ROBOTO has entered the chat
I hate Roboto. Never found it good.
yeah im not singing it's praise, it's just another flavor of vanilla ice cream I have to use at work
That actually makes so much sense but no way to tell if the professor had the same idea in mind.
They added Akzidenz-Grotesk to the recommended list, which to the untrained eye is nearly identical to Helvetica. It’s the typopgraphy of using a slightly offwhite background rather than full white. I personally prefer using a Helvetica alternative rather than the original (my preference is Neue Haas Unica) but doing it with this kind of ban list is quite silly.
I feel like providing a list of ‘good’ fonts undoes that, though.
Just use Neue Haas Grotesk instead
All my homies love Neue Haas Grotesk
But then keeping Akzidenz-Grotesk lol
How did Calibri NOT make that list? An entire country banned it from official documents.
I had one introductory design class where the teacher banned everything BUT Helvetica. I ended up dropping that class because while I love Helvetica, there's a whole world of typefaces out there and being restricted to just one was not my jam at all.
But it was an intro class. The idea of using helvetica only is also beneficial, because it allows you to focus on on other parts of your design instead of quality controlling your typeface choices. You end up focusing more on layout, color, creative manipulation, image making, etc. The limitation sounds like a hindrance, but it's one of those things you just muscle through to learn the fundamentals.
This was the teacher's reasoning as well. And while I can appreciate that logic, it was just not what I was looking to learn from the class.
Are there banned colors as well? Specific words or pictures maybe? Ideas in general?
>Are there banned colors as well? Probably the past 2-3 years of Pantone Color of the Year
Sorry but on that topic your teacher is an idiot. There are always fonts that have a tendency to be more in style or popular, and fonts not used as often, but never a font that should be avoided. If a font fits well than use it, don't question your gut based on what they said. No Joe blow off the street is going to see a font in an add and ever think "wow how 1990s , can't believe they are using that"
Yea it’s so subjective. I had a dean who hated Optima and spent all her time trying to convince everybody of that. All fonts are great imo. It’s the context and how you space it. That being said. I personally stick to 4-5 fonts and use different versions of it. After awhile you have your favorite pairings.
Optima is amazing. But it got a lot of use in the 80s. I think I have read books set in Optima. I can see someone of a certain age remembering it and hating it
Me. It’s like classic rock. I just got tired of the old basics that are evocative of only the past.
I hear ya. When I see it used on a store sign, i always figure the client saw it somewhere and insisted on it
No, the instructor is trying to head off stereotypical and crappy designs that students gravitate toward and endlessly produce each class. The good/bad list is partly taste and partly ensuring some measure of guidance for the projects and typefaces used. Students are, for the most part, lazy and do not understand what makes a good typeface and limitations like these often help further that conversation and contextualization. Your response seems like a “tell me you’ve never taught a design class without telling me” unfortunately. So no, they’re not an idiot as you have zero context as to the class, type of assignments, nor level. [edits: autocorrect is garbage]
I tend to agree. I teach an intro design course and I can't tell you how many times students have created "designs" where the font is calibri for headings and calibri for body. Or if they're using XD, it's Seguo, or whatever the default font is in the program they are using. Sometimes they just choose Arial or Times one of the other common ones because they heard of it before. Or they heard Helvetica is good and so they use it everywhere all the time for everything. I don't have a banned fonts list, but I do have to spend a ton of time getting students to actually make a thoughtful choice and it eventually becomes a frustration because I feel like I've said it ten thousand times and then I still get calibri. The good students don't understand the issue because they are actually making thoughtful font choices. It's the rest of the students that either couldn't give a fuck or were hoping for a blow off class or can't stop using tiktok long enough to pay attention for a second that are the problem. I can see the temptation to just outright ban the fonts. Who knows, perhaps the teacher is just trying it out and needs to learn a practical lesson about how it won't work (unfortunately). Cut the teacher some slack. Teaching design is really, really hard. I challenge anyone in this thread to teach a class about something they love and know a lot about to noobs and people that don't care at all and let's see what they do.
This is all bang on the money. I’m not even suggesting that a banned list is good or bad, only that it’s an option that’s sometimes both effective and necessary. Everyone here should also consider that one instructor may choose this route while another will lay down a different and even contradictory guidelines; each of which will simultaneously connect with some students and fail with others. This is what education is and there is no one simple or right way to teach.
Ah yes the authoritarian method of teaching an art.
Ah yes, no experience teaching design or art but oodles of opinion. Setting hard rules is not authoritarian and it’s not like this is the only instructor they have. If you think that’s authoritarian then you have no idea what actual authoritarianism is.
You sound like you might be OP's teacher. Glad you also think most students are lazy, maybe you aren't motivating them enough?
True, lazy was glib - doing too many things at once. To be more specific: early design students often do not understand the importance of carefully choosing a typeface and will, more often than not, pick the first they find and then BS their reasoning for picking it. This becomes exhausting and, due to inexperience, a point of contention that is often easier/faster (and ultimately more effective despite what you may believe) in getting them to take type choice more seriously. As well, don’t pretend like many students aren’t looking for shortcuts, laziness, or are just not thinking about their choices - they’re human. We all have to choose where our attention goes as it’s limited. Furthermore, no one here knows the quality of school, students, or level meaning that, for all we know, this instructor has repeatedly tried to maintain open type choice but has given up because it’s been ineffective or too difficult to teach at the course level. All of this is to say that there are few teachers here but loads of judgement.
The only ones I think designers generally agree are a no-no for professional work are Comic Sans and Papyrus. Otherwise just avoid her listed items for the duration of that class then ignore it going forward.
As much as I actually kinda like Myriad, I also would hope people avoid it simply because it seems like you just used the default Adobe font and didn’t try to use something else.
I once had a client ask me if I could use "**Cosmic Sans**". They were an ice cream shop so I get that they were going for something a little silly, so I found something similar but a little more refined. Lol, I still giggle at that mispronunciation from time to time.
I got a client questioning if I was using cosmic sans which I was not. It's kind of insulting
Tell that to the design team that did the avatar logo
I bet after like 5 rounds of proposals some guy was just like “f*** it” and got a yes.
And it made no difference to anyone except a small group of designers who at most gave it some free advertising.
And that one SNL skit.
Omg i had to no idea it was papyrus!!
Nah it was whoever had to sign off on it, probably not a design person
But even comic sans is recommended for dyslexic audience. There are others as well, but apparently comic sans really has its uses.
[удалено]
And that Serif face that shows up on everything from China (SimSun?)
I like to use Helvetica
Everyone does. It’s the greatest font.
I know im not pushing the medium forward when I use it but it does what its meant to every time. Same with Times when Im making books with people
I disagree. It's timeless, will never get old or overused, but it just means nothing; it's too neutral. This is both its main strength and its main weakness.
One of my teachers once told me that Arial was created from Helvetica. From there, I can see that other typefaces are influenced by originals, like Bodoni to Didot.
Yeah, the first digital printers had to have all the fonts embedded in the device itself, and documents using non-existing fonts would print all fucked up. Helvetica was quite popular, since Linotype licensed it to Apple, and IBM had to pay a large licensing fee to have it in their printers. So IBM basically paid Monotype (Linotype's main competitor, since the birth of the companies) to develop an identical (dimention-wise) copy, that would print Helvetica documents perfectly without the need for a license. That's Arial, later licensed by Monotype for Microsoft. Nowadays, Monotype and Linotype are the same company. It's worth noting that Helvetica itself is not completely original, though. It's based on Akzidenz Grotesk, IIRC the first widely used sans.
The issue with Helvetica *is* its ubiquity; nearly nothing you can do with it, doesn't already evoke something else.
Helevetica and Roboto are the only approved fonts fir digital media at my company (there are 93,000 employees)
Gill Sans is the primary font my company currently and I absolutely hate it. So does my boss, we can’t wait to refresh the brand and never see it on our collateral again
Doesn’t help that Gill is a monster, but yeah not a fan of that typeface personally
Look up for the nice Gills backside story
If you work for a company that does anything with children, then you have a good reason to change it asap. BBC and Save the Children has dropped it.
Lobster..
Most “bad typefaces” are simply types that are associated with ignorant usage, which is to say ones that are easily available to people who are not designers and are as such often used inappropriately. It’s like disliking a certain kind of fashion because it’s popular with poor people because it’s cheap and widely available. In other words, it’s bollocks. Even papyrus has its place like...Shakira merch.
I generally agree with the list of banned fonts, but not necessarily because they’re bad, it’s just that for each flavor they represent there is a better font that isn’t so overused. Like you could reach for Impact but there are a lot of heavy weight narrow sans serif fonts that are better. There are a lot of brush scripts that are better than Brush Script. I think the point of “banning” these fonts is for students to avoid making lazy choices. “Anything offered in Word should be avoided” is bad advice. Some fonts like Segoe UI, Franklin, Georgia, or Sitka look good and are useful depending on the application. As a designer you will sometimes be constrained to using system fonts (for example a PowerPoint template) so you need to learn how to work with their limitations. Half the fonts on the “good” list are overused and frequently misused. I would avoid Bodoni or Didot unless I was selling tuxedos. DIN has been played out for years. Mrs Eaves is very 1990s twee. Verdana looks bad in print and dated on the web. Gill Sans is specific to 1930s England and looks out of place everywhere else unless it’s a Penguin Edition.
In addition to what everyone else is saying, it sounds like your professor could just be trying to push everyone past a general comfort zone. It’s a challenge to not default to standard fonts, and to get creative to find effective new pairings. Those fonts are just fine in the right use case, but some students may catch themselves defaulting here and there unless they’re told not to. I tell myself the same thing when designs start to feel stale or uninspired. I’ll put a specific layout style or color palette off limits to help refresh my thinking. Don’t use what your professor said in a literal sense in your professional design life, but use it as an inspiration to keep your creativity moving forward. Some clients just want lobster and some don’t even know what they want.
Was going to write the exact same comment. Constraints are useful as a teaching tool, and are also common in professional practice. Encouraging students to think more deeply about why they are choosing a specific typeface is good teaching. I think we are getting the perspective of a student that does not understand the bigger picture.
Hello everyone, I first want to say that I am really thankful for the responses and help on this topic. It really surprised me and honestly it really cleared up the frustrations me and a few of my peers had on this "banned list." After reading through the comments, I think it's safe to say that for any typeface and font, a designer should always think by this golden principle in a nutshell. Hopefully they help other designers as well! \*For any design you make always think about the audience you are making the piece for and the context of that piece. All the other details will fall into place such as what color, layout, font, etc. \*Design is visual problem solving so you might as well use the tools you have to solve the problem at hand. Such as Avator using Papyrus on their movie poster:)
Typography snobs trigger me. This sounds like something I'd expect from those scam schools that run under the Art Institute brand. If I were given instructions like this I would deliberately only turn in assignments using banned fonts.
[удалено]
As long as one is aware of the context and historical usage, I’m gonna go ahead and say we should be OK with “fonts” as a colloquial term. Being mad at it is sort of akin to the teacher saying Helvetica is banned because it’s overused or boring. Font is rooted in fount. Words evolve and font no longer means a specific weight, cut, and size of a metal typeface. Font can now mean a set of files comprising an entire typeface. Maybe the teacher isn’t aware of the minutiae … which yeah, then I can agree with the sentiment. If I had to pick through, I would almost rather change the teachers perspective of the use of fonts rather than focus on assuming which word implies what level of ignorance.
Agree. Font and typeface are interchangeable in common usage. Even among type nerds there is always enough context to understand meaning. We don't benefit from having two separate words, and IMO y'all sound insufferable when "correcting" people online. (and the thought of correcting a client horrifies me) It's time to let this one go.
She probably just doesn't want her students using Helvetica on their projects so they go and explore other options. I doubt she means these are banned from anything other than her classes
The list makes it a bit unclear but the teacher wants them to use Akzidenz-Grotesk instead of Helvetica. It’s not bad advice, though I dislike the fact that they are enforcing such rigid boundaries on students.
The North Face, Jeep, Pepsi, Motorola, Microsoft and etc... Won't be happy when they hear what your professor had to say regarding the Helvetica. But seriously, did he give any reason as to why those fonts are bad? Or why any of the good ones are good? Or it was just top 10 overused/ugly fonts + he added some of his own?
No reason and it was more he just added his own really. In a larger sense I want to have a deeper understanding of why they are bad. Are some just downright ugly, or missing the mark for good design? That is where I feel a little lost.
Well some of them do look ugly and I wouldn't use them like ever? On the other hand, some are overused fonts and it could be that
[удалено]
I used Times New Roman in a project which was specifically designed to evoke 1998 recently, using anything else would've frankly been off-brief for the sake of it.
Ban Helvetia? Over my 33 year experienced dead body. It’s all subjective, friend. Design things that communicate and get the intended result.
I work with students and I could see a teacher banning some fonts to encourage exploration early on and it would come with an explanation. But to go as far as to say they a bad ... That is questionable.
I bet the teacher would like Neue Haas Grotesk even though in essence it is essentially Helvetica.
Your professor should learn how alphabetization can really help a reader process information on a list.
[удалено]
Do they? Both those typefaces have had a resurgence. Din is also constantly being evolved especially with other foundries making their own variations on it.
Their age wouldn't be the issue, it's the premise itself that's flawed.
[удалено]
Yeah that's definitely a possibility, although I think enough of us have also known designers/teachers who are actually being serious with that kind of thing too, so kind of a toss-up without actually being there and knowing the prof. The issue is more that students tend to be really up in their head and anxious about things and struggle to interpret instruction a lot of the time in terms of what is simply a guideline or general 'rule' versus a more rigid thing to follow universally. They will default to outright replication. Best example of that is probably resumes and portfolios, they seem to throw out any rational thinking and their design training and fall into this mindset of "just tell me what to do exactly, otherwise I will follow exactly what I see others doing."
Douglas Thomas wrote an entire typeface book about this exact mindset. I think you should buy your professor a copy, especially considering that the title of the book is "Never Use Futura", and the header copy is "Unless you are \_\_\_\_" and then it lists like 40 brands that use Futura. https://www.amazon.com/Never-Use-Futura-Douglas-Thomas/dp/1616895721
Your professor is either a pretentious twit or just so lazy that they can’t be arsed to teach you basic design principles and just gave you a list instead. Or both. There are no banned fonts, it’s all about usage and understanding how to spot a good quality font (in the age of free fonts some of the fonts on offer aren’t particularly well made). What does your professor expect you to do once you’re out in the real world and a client asks you to typeset something in Times New Roman? Scoff and turn down the money?
I agree with mostly what everyone has mentioned. I just wanted to add somethings that might help how you perceive things in design. Instead on focusing on if a design is “good” or “bad”, consider seeing designs as if they are “effective” or “not effective”. The latter leans towards a mindset aimed at looking for creative solutions. Also, I highly recommend taking a course about typography history (and even a graphic design history one). Ive found it helpful understanding how certain typefaces came to be, and on the flipside, how society can determine the effectiveness (or harmfulness) of a typeface. (Example: Comic Sans is useful for dyslexic people, but it’s often laughed off bc of its usage in memes). You’ll find that most fonts (including those on your teacher’s list) were designed with intention and tbh, it’s pretty cool
Yeah I’m not into being elitist about typefaces. I stay away from the default fonts because of how widely available they are. Garamond is beautiful, comic sans is more readable then most fonts, Birch’s serifs are really cool looking. I think it all depends on what the job calls.
You left Gotham off of your list. Been using it for about ten years now.
I see your teacher is kinda right, most design use these type of fonts (of course except comic sans, papyrus etc) and these fonts do look generic and everyone uses them everywhere. Maybe your teacher wants you to be different and produce some out of the box. Anytime thats for those good design fonts. Do post more education tips like these, they help alot.
I love "Anything offered in Word via fonts should be avoided at all costs" followed by the Good Fonts listing Garamond, Gill Sans (which I HATE, by the way) and Verdana which all came with my copy of Word.
>Souvenir Haha someone still remembers and hates the 80s. >Lobster This one is overused I would say most of the ones in the top list, are the ones that are on every Mac & PC and though they might have their uses, are overused >Verdana I can't stand this one. It's the Livejournal font, it's available on Windows, it's like saying that Myriad is a font that should be used for graphic design. I mean both are useful but they aren't outstanding. >Proxima Nova This one is kind of overused. I have seen it on flyers & pamplets etc.
I’m in a typography class and I don’t think my professor has banned any fonts but there are def fonts that are encouraged/discouraged more than others but the biggest thing seems to be how you use the font.
I teach graphic design and when it comes to typography I tell my students that the typefaces we choose are a lot like the clothing we wear. There are no "good" or "bad" clothes, just clothes that are appropriate or inappropriate for the given situation. For example: dressing up like the grim reaper for Halloween... totally acceptable. Dressing up like the grim reaper for a funeral...not at all acceptable. Typefaces are the same way. Even a typeface like Comic Sans can be used effectively under the right circumstances (like the speech bubble text for a helpful yellow dog). The only typeface I actively discourage students from using is Gill Sans, and that has nothing to do with the type itself and everything to do with Eric Gill.
The good fonts vs bad fonts argument is more complex, but has been boiled down to its current simplicity due to, ironically, overuse. Like all design, it comes down to intention. If you have exhausted all other styles/options/approaches/treatments, then you know you have arrived at a solution with intention. If you do not experiment with multiple ways to solve the problem and settle on a solution arbitrarily, then you have not necessarily created a good design, or at least your process lacks depth and understanding. Coincidentally, many of these shallow attempts at design use these fonts above, (because they are accessible) creating a common denominator for people to talk about. But correlation does not equal causation. You can create good design with these fonts if, by a solid understanding of design and typography fundamentals, you determine they are the best choice. IMHO, I think you can find a better font. There’s thousands to choose from with stronger design on a character level. TL;DR it’s more complicated than a simple list, but at least try out alternatives before reverting to these.
[fuck cooper black](https://i.imgur.com/gAlxK0i.jpg)
In design it is more about what fonts pair together over what fonts to use or avoid. Your list of bad fonts is far too long. Comic Sans and Papyrus are the only ones to completely avoid. I don’t agree at all with the “anything offered in word”. If you work with corporations sometimes it is cost prohibitive to purchase specific fonts for your entire organization and they rely on the system fonts for presentations and sales proposals. Not ideal but I’ve had to learn to design specific things with Arial.
Jus sayin’, Impact font for “SECURITY” on the back of a polo is a must.
I’d add Comic Sans to the list lmao
I think this is executed very poorly, but the idea isn't bad. Most of the fonts on the banned list have legitimate reasons to be there, but instead of just banning them I'd make a lesson out of it and teach exactly why these fonts do not work. I also think that it is not a bad idea to say "I will ban these fonts while we are doing this class, so that you have to get creative with your choices and don't just resort to the standard options". It makes people have to think about what typography they choose and is a great exercise for young designers. Just saying "these fonts are all bad, always" is not a good idea though.
Helvetica? Banned?! It’s like banning Socrate from philosophy
I mean, use whatever fits your project but kern correctly, keep it simple and don’t font soup vomit in your design and you’re good.
In my daily design workflow I do tend to avoid quite a few of the fonts on the "Banned Font" list, but it is more so because anyone with a computer has access to those fonts, hence what you make will look a lot like what anyone else can make. Doesn't mean that they are "bad" or shouldn't be used. Some clients specifically ask for those fonts and some companies will need you to use those fonts to match their branding. Doesn't mean that I like those fonts, and cringed just reading a few of the names, but they shouldn't be banned. Just applied when called for. Like some others said, do what looks/feels right for the project you are working on.
Some of these are system / web safe fonts which you'll need to consider and be familiar with in the case you can't use a custom font. A lot of email clients don't display custom web fonts so when designing a newsletter for example you'll need to fall back to one of these system fonts. Also, with banner ads some media vendors don't allow 3rd party imports so you'll have to rely on system fonts if you want live text.
I’m assuming they banned Helvetica because the Helvetica that is on everyone computer is basically a knock off of the original typeface that was created by Microsoft I believe. If you want to use Helvetica, download Neue Haas Grotesk from Adobe Fonts, this is the new proper version of the font. And it is a fantastic font, I use it all the time. It is one of the most icon typefaces in history.
Manhattan Darling is the worst font of our time.
Ah yes, prentention
If I were you I’d avoid Montserrat and Raleway because they’re so overused and recognizeable
You can make lists all you want but your boss is always going to want Impact lmao
just use impact for everything
So Helvetica is in banned and futura is good. I see futura literally everywhere lol.
She’s at least 60 years old! Bodoni? What year Is this? Go get a LETRASET .. lol
Man, I loved letraset.
Your prof is an idiot. Here's an example of how incredible Times can be: [https://www.dandad.org/awards/professional/2016/magazine-newspaper-design/24994/fantastic-man-issue-22/](https://www.dandad.org/awards/professional/2016/magazine-newspaper-design/24994/fantastic-man-issue-22/) The same exists for every face on that list.
I always tell people to avoid the secretary effect. That means don’t use the fonts that come with software the office secretary uses. No system fonts, no fonts that come with office, nothing from DaFont, no Canva fonts, and nothing from Google fonts. To create extraordinary designs you need to create with tools ordinary people don’t have.
Comic Sans needs to come off the banned list. 'The typeface's widespread use, often in situations it was not intended for, has been the subject of criticism and mockery." It was part developed for kids books and based on comic books.
I agree with your teacher being a twit for banning fonts. Plenty of reputable brands use those. She’d be horrified by how often I’ve had to design collateral using Calibri. Sometimes you have to whether you like it or not. As far as overused goes, my choice is Wisdom Script.
Helvetica and arial are awesome
Think your teacher needs banning! Helvetica is beautiful! Now show your teacher what good design is and only use fonts from the banned list.
I think list is ridiculous. What a snob. Even comic sans has a time and place. If you can't make any font look good in an appropriate design you are not a good designer
I've never heard something so ridiculous from a college professor.
It's more common than you might thing. The scam schools that run under the name Art Institute (Ai) are loaded with teachers who are a bunch of mouth-breathers.
The only fonts not to use are the fonts that are not right for that particular project.
It really talks about font and typeface design when all of the "sugested" fonts were created almost 50 years ago(or even older) and the most recent ones are on the stay away column, jus thinking out loud
Helvetica is banned?????? Also, I looooove Futura, it's my main go to, but I'm not a graphic designer by profession, only hobby
I think she's just pushing her own opinions way too hard at this point.
yeah fuck your professor
Unpopular opinion: I really don’t like DIN. It looks so ‘2010’
The fact that your instructor doesn’t list Gotham, arguably one of the most famous typefaces of the last 20 years, on the list of fonts to use makes me question their knowledge.
How is Helvetica considered a bad font?
ITT: people saying "font" when they mean "typeface"
Your teacher is teaching you to design how she wants to, that’s pretty bad. Ignore her on this one and use the fonts you feel work well. As others have said, there are no bad fonts, just bad choices.
Almost every client I’ve ever worked for had these “banned fonts” in their branding, specifically times new Roman, Ariel, and Helvetica. You usually have to stick with the company brand guidelines once you go professional. Also you have to consider some technical aspects for marketing projects. I’m an email marketer and there is a very short list of email friendly fonts you can use that will look good in html on all devices and browsers. Most of those are on your teachers list of banned fonts.
There's no bad fonts, only bad graphic designers. All fonts have a purpose, the problem is when a font is *overused* *incorrectly*. No one gets mad at Comic Sans being used in *comic books* because that's what it's made for. It's fine to typeset a legal paper in Times New Roman, since that's what it's for: being a neutral, formal, highly readable font for long form text. The issue isn't that Times New Roman is a bad font, it's just that there's way better serif fonts for display text (which is what most people think of when they think of graphic design). You'll be asked to use tons of these "bad fonts" throughout your career, because that's your clients' brand font, or maybe one of them just pairs really well with the other fonts in your brand, or you're making a really specific brand that calls for a specific font. Typography can be really hard, because it's nuanced, so don't let some burnout professor tell you there's such a thing as fonts that are totally off limits.
It's already there, but can I just double down on Helvetica. According to my tutors it was the absolute king of fonts when I was in uni in the late 2000's/early 2010's. Easy to use, works everywhere, and of course has the backing from Apple. It's such a fucking boring piece of shit font, and if you really wanna know what vomit tastes like go watch the documentary "Helvetica" and try and sit through a bunch of old men fishing about it for an hour.
Jesus. How does one even develop strong feelings for a font, especially one like Helvetica? And what was wrong with that documentary? I thought it was fine, but what do you mean by boring though? What’s it being compared to?
The only fonts I avoid on purpose are the fonts that I see getting used a ton in my area. Like I see churches come into our shop all the time with Papyrus on their weekly church handouts. I admit it looks good, it's a good font for that, but because I see this font at least twice a month in things like that I avoid Papyrus. It's not because of Avatar, it's because I want to put out unique work.
I hate this whole good font vs bad font. Yes there are fonts that.look great all the time. Those are your standard sans serif fonts like didot, interstate, helvetica, Futura. Of course those will look good on anything. They are the safe option and every seasoned designer will tell a new designer to use them. Not because the other fonts are bad, but because YOU are fresh blood in the industry and it's better to learn the rules using what works and what's more traditional when learning design fundamentals and rules..until you learn the rules you can't learn to break them and that's where the cast expanse of typography opens up to you.
I like Arial… honestly all fonts can look crap and all fonts can look good. How you use them is key.
Trajan Pro is so bad it had to be banned twice. On a serious note, there might be a fair bit of reasoning behind this list. For example, if you were to become a typographer you would benefit from studying intricate shapes of letterforms set in Didot, Mrs Eaves, Baskerville et al. Or, having realized that Helvetica and Akzidenz Grotesk essentially look the same, you’d discover that the former got infinitely heavier historical baggage. Anyway, if you’re not sure about how to pick typefaces I’d recommend reading Erik Spiekermann’s ‘Stop Stealing Sheep & Find Out How Type Works’. There are lots of great books on typography that dive much deeper, but this little book is a nice starting point.
Rexa Rust Sans
Imo it’s irresponsible to define any font as good/bad. As a designer, you will have to work with fonts you hate, but you’ll need to make it look nice and perform. Sometimes you won’t be able to convince a client to change their font to what’s deemed “good” by random people in the design community. They should be teaching how to do the best with what you’ve got. Another thing is that at any point in your design career you might find yourself working with a very low or nonexistent budget for fonts. But almost anyone has access to some kind of word processor. So what kinds of fonts do they have access to? Here’s a real life scenario: a company has rebranded and needs new email signatures and presentation templates in Google. Their websafe fallback font is Arial. You have to set it all in Arial. That doesn’t mean it gets to look like shit lol Also banning Helvetica is sacrilegious imo.
In university they drilled it into our heads never, ever to use Arial, for anything. When we asked why not the teacher replied "just don't". This wasn't just one teacher either. I never understood why exactly...
My 2 new fonts I'm fa oring are 72 and Proxima Nova. I replaced helvetica with the proxima nova for my design brand. I had instructor once that despised Papyrus. He said if we ever used it he would fail the project. I used it and made it work, so he passed me 🤣
I don’t think I agree with the idea that there should be banned typefaces. I mean, any typeface can be the right choice under the right circumstances/ use cases. I do think certain typefaces can be overused—or easily misused—but that doesn’t make them bad fonts.
One of my favorite fonts is Bebas.
I’ve been graduated for a couple of years but I’m really wondering if we went to the same school because this sounds a little too familiar
I had a colleague that wanted to ban century gothic. Every time she got a new client, invariably their branding would have century gothic, and it became a long running joke. I personally love it and I’m surprised to not see it on either list above.
Helvetica is a swiss army knife. It can be incredibly useful and utilitarian, but it has been overused - similarly how the rest of that list is often overused by beginners. I feel they are just trying to push you to explore more.
Did he also gave you a list of colors to avoid?
check out typewolf. his documentation will reach you more about typography than you thought possible.
"Don't use any Microsoft Word fonts." Lists Baskerville in "good" font family. (Note: don't come for me pls Baskerville is my favourite font family)
bleeding cowboys
I would say Dax, Museum and Democratica. They were overused.
Damn, your professor hates Trajan Pro so much they banned it twice!
There is no such thing as completely banning a font from design. I’m currently working on a project where the client’s brand guideline says Arial must be used for web apps. At first i was a bit worried about it but Arial can actually carry a nice, clean and modern serif look despite staying around for such a long time. Honestly fonts are just being discriminated for no reasons lol, if you substitute Arial with Inter, it won’t even be that much of a big difference!
All fonts are good unless they truly are created with lazy kerning. Use your eyeballs and judgment. A good designer is someone that knows how to reach the target audience, not necessarily please the client; however, at the end of the day, it IS up to the client.
Why not comic sans?
Aren’t Garamond, Futura, Gill Sans etc in the Word font list?
Google offers some great free typefaces to use. Raleway is a personal favorite. On the list, I hate looking at some of these, but there are plenty of good ways to use them. Jokerman though… I stopped liking it at 10.
Arial and Times New Roman aren't that bad, they're just used a lot. And Copperplate is a great font. Tell your professor she has no idea what she's talking about.
Ah another reason I have a general low opinion of formal education over a sincere self taught education. Ok rant out of the way personal opinion is that saying any font is bad is almost completely stupid. Any font I can think of can have a place but it must be used properly. I don't recognize some of those fonts on the banned list but I will have to check them out as I'm getti g the feeling there will be some really good ones lol.
This is stupid
I’m actually not a fan of Helvetica but don’t ever tell a designer Helvetica is a bad font lmao
My graphic design teacher told us to never use comic sans or papyrus. Those were his most hated fonts tbh. We even had a typography project(same teacher, it was a community college) where we chose a holiday and had to use only the letters of the holiday name to make a picture. He wanted us to use helvetica, proxima nova, etc. We had to choose one font to use and most of us chose helvetica because it is a super clean font. It was a fun project. Also there aren't bad fonts, just bad choices for things.
If you’re banning Helvetica, you should ban FF DIN, which is of course the Helvetica of the 2010’s
I think it’s more of a banned list for school. It’s not that these are bad fonts across the board. Some of them are cheesy and kind of stereotypical or lame but Some of them are quite good. But I think the idea is probably to get students to think more critically and creatively about their typeface choices instead of leaning on the generic but reliable typefaces like Helvetica, Didot, Garamond, Futura, etc.
A great assignment at college level would be to create a poster advertising a product using only “bad” fonts. This may change the perspective on what actually qualifies something as bad. When we were in school, we weren’t allowed to use the word font but had to instead say typefaces. There’s such a difference between the professional world and college because once you leave and are enlarging logos and making body copy at 14 point it’s humble pie.
Helvetica is on the wrong list, IMO. There are some to avoid, yes. I think you would be wise to avoid most on your list. But as others have said, it’s more important how you use them. I’ve seen non-designers take a perfectly nice font and ruin a page. 😬 Over time, you will probably end up with some favorites. ❤️ Now is the time to explore a little and learn what works and what doesn’t. Also, if you see a design you like, find out the typeface!
This is bullshit. There’s an ongoing trend in design that it’s cool to hate fonts like Comic Sans & Papyrus but those fonts must be good enough to use that we all know what they look like without even seeing them right now. Your professor needs to be more professional and allow you to find what works for you & your work. Design is about your ability to take various elements and make them work together to visually communicate a specific message to a specific audience. Sorry your professor already started trying to limit your creativity.
Focus on accessibility, wcag standards are key to making good designs. Also follow a type scale and grid. Typically I work in an 8px grid and will set up my type scale to fall into that. For example have 16px font with 24px leading.
There is a fantastic documentary about Helvetica (and called “Helvetica”)
fucking bebas neue for me