It's virtually impossible to have a deep design-related discussion without it sounding to naive ears as pretentious. Design is the art of arranging things so as to evoke particular feelings in people. To discuss them is to discuss the feelings they're evoking vs the feelings that were intended to be evoked. And there's only so far you can get with the sorts of words ordinary people use to talk about their feelings. And nobody likes to hear that other people might feel and perceive deeper than them.
Same as every crack addict on a come down, surely?
I'm not sure if Britney Spears had pushy parents, but I think that's the analogy with Comic Sans. Abusively pushy and demeaning, trying to criticise when the flaws are those of the beholder and bestowing outrageous praise for imaginary achievements.
I'm glad to hear solid defence of Comic Sans here because whatever it is, it's sui generis, unto itself true. Which I think is the most attractive character trait at the same time as provoking extreme reactions of self projection in observers.
Sure. If you’re targeting a similar audience as Apple or other high end brands. My point is that there’s a different kind of audience for comic sans or its variants.
Comic Sans has no ambition; is chosen despite itself; is hyper-ordinary.
It’s the supermarket’s-own-brand ramen noodles of typefaces.