Font Experiment

Newer font makes the text feel more dynamic in this example. Good work, Nanase!

Ardent Slacker

In the previews the new font is clearer and easier to read, particularly with the extra leading. In HD the old font and the new font with extra leading are equally easy to read, but without the extra leading the new font is harder. Also, the bold in the new font is so strong it makes it feel like the characters are shouting.

Chronos Cat

I mainly use mine as a pocket watch.

Chronos Cat

Can you increase the tracking on the new font? It seems a teeny bit tight to me.

Thed Preston

I can't see the difference...

StreetbreakerX2

I barely notice any difference.

You say that the new font allows you to make something italicized without also making it bold. I'd be interested in seeing a version that utilized that ability, particularly on the first bubble where Nanase comes across as shouting when the effect that I took it for in the original reading (and which I think is the intended reading) is she's woozy and sort of slurring a bit (but not enough to induce a phonetic accent).

Fenrir

For me, I find that the leading still feels cramped at 85%, and I think I'd prefer something around 90%. The wider letter-spacing of the new font kind of wants a larger leading, to maintain the contrast for easy readability. Beyond that, the fonts look nearly the same to me.

Brooks Moses

Honestly, while it doesn't take anything away from dialog that the original font had, it's not anything fancy either, if no one mentioned it, I probably wouldn't notice. It likely depends on the reader whether or not if makes a difference in readability.

Scotty

IMO, the new font (and the ability to include italics without bold) is good, but when using bold you might want to use the increased leading.

McClaw

If you have the ability, reducing the new font's width by a tiny amount (enough to make the capital O round rather than elliptical) would make it look better, in my opinion. Edit: Also the 85% definitely looks better.

Emtu

the first word bubble seems kind of cramped, but I think it looks fine after.

Michael Brewer

I find the old font easier on the eyes and easier to read. Although the new font with the modified leading isn't bad. And italics without bold is a good option to have.

Kkat

New font is definitely easier to read

David Chuhay

I like the new font, and also prefer the adjusted leading.

coredumperror

A bit more on the bold: In most cases, bold is used sparingly, so it's OK for it to stand out to emphasize those rare cases. But in comics, bold is used a lot—you used it in 4 of the 6 bubbles, for example—so it needs to be subtle to not be too distracting.

Quasitling

The bold is too bold in the new font. Worse, it is not as readable; it takes noticeably longer to read it, which is not something you want in a font. I think the old font is clearly better designed.

Quasitling

The old font is more readable for me (dyslexic, if that makes a difference), but there's not much in it. I agree with Alex Dudman that the bold comes on a little too strong. The first speech bubble looks like it is shouted enthusiastically, which doesn't seem quite right.

Alex Moffatt

I agree that the old font is not perfect, but imho the new one is even worse to read. The only pro is that the bold-parts look nice. But not the regular text.

Sunblaze

Oops. 895% leading would have the first line here in Gainesville and the second line somewhere around Buford. Obviously i meant "897%"

Fairportfan

The 895% might still be a mite tight, but it's fine. I tend to run about 90% leading on most fonts on my DTP projects - some, like my font made from my handwriting and my "ransom note" cut-out-style font need to be set even tighter.

Fairportfan

The bold seems a bit too bold to me, but maybe the extra nuance of having separate bold and italic options would help. It's tough for me to say if that advantage is worth it without seeing it... Unless the "new font" images were already re-done with those changes, in which case I would say "I can't tell which parts are which."

On my machine (reading off a Mac desktop on a smallish widescreen monitor), the original font is fine, but the bold is barely noticeable. Much more obvious on the new font, so I prefer it. If you're reading on a phone, they tend to display a thumbnail of graphics rather than the actual image (I know they do this for pdfs as well), so that can affect the way some fonts look. But I'm an old guy, so I just use my phone as a camera, and as a way to be annoyed by telemarketers...

The new font looks clearer to me.

I think I prefer the new font, but as noticed above, I would have had a hard time telling it if they weren't side by side. But I think I find the new font overall clearer. I prefer the 80% leading to the 85%, too. But I tend to prefer compact text, so I am probably quite biased here.

Audrey Azura

If I wasn't seeing them side by side, I probably wouldn't notice any difference.

For the new one, the horizontal white space between letters is a bit too large for me, and the font is ever so slightly slightly too thick, but overall I think it's probably a better choice.

Matoyak

I didn't even notice a difference for the first minute.

Stephen Gilberg

I like the new font. Maybe tighten up the spacing between letters, but otherwise it's easier on the eyes.

Notimeformeta

The emphasis in using the bold italics, italics and bold text modifiers allows for narrative that seems missing in the former, despite the two being equally laid out. That is to say, it is far easier to read it the way you meant it to be read with the new font.

Lia

I like the fact that you can more clearly see the difference between bold and non-bold text.

Christen Lester-Jones

I have "Old Eyes" and the new font is slightly easier to read.

Michael Booth

Little too bold. I like the slight subtlety of the previous font. I'm the minority though, so...

Fifthwing