Google announces Literata, its new e-book typeface

[Dopedangel]

Google has announced a new typeface for Google Books: Literata.

Replacing Droid Serif as the default typeface for e-books via Google Books, Google says Literata is “perfect for long reads on all devices”.

Created in conjunction with TypeFace, Google began work on Literata in April 2014. The goal was a “new book typeface was needed that would provide an outstanding reading experience on a whole range of devices and high resolution screens running different rendering technologies”.

http://thenextweb.com/google/2015/05...book-typeface/

[Dopedangel]

Literata


Droid Serif


Here are the sample if anyone is interested

I can post the link to the actual font but I am not sure if they are open source or not.

[HarryT]

I don't see any significant difference between the two screenshots, personally. They look equally readable.

[GERGE]

It is different, and much better:

[Images violate Posting Guidelines for size - MODERATOR]

It is not open source.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GERGE

It is different, and much better:

Must be a matter of personal perception. Even in your close-up shots I see that it's different, but not that it's better. Oh well, as long as some people find it better, that's all that matters!

[DrChiper]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Must be a matter of personal perception.

I agree. It does however add not much for me too. But maybe for the visually impaired it can make a difference as there is some better distinction here and there. Further, it also depends surely on the used e-book device screen capabilities so YMMV.

As I recall, there where some attempts in the past to develop a better typeface for certain groups of readers. Never heard though whether they were actually picked up.

[GERGE]

Type is mostly a matter of taste, I always thought that while Droid Serif has nice design ideas, its ascenders and body width were too small. This new Literata fixes this problems.

Droid Serif is great on screen at small sizes, but I believe Literata is more suitable for print and eInk.

As a side note, types designed for ereading are coming one after the other. Bitter, Kobo Nickel, Bookerly and now Literata. Literata is the best of them yet.

PS. I say mostly because there are some accepted ideas about main design features for text typefaces.

[PandathePanda]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't see any significant difference between the two screenshots, personally. They look equally readable.

Looking at the two the new google font looks easier on the eye than the old one.

[pdurrant]

The type foundry's blog post, with lots of examples:

http://type-together.com/literata

[pdurrant]

I can find no license from Google that applies to this font, except the "All Rights Reserved" embedded in the font itself. So we must assume that Google do not want the font distributed outside the Play Books app at present. Please do not upload the font here or post links to extracted copies.

[Nate the great]

Google actually started using the font a couple weeks ago:
http://the-digital-reader.com/2015/0...ion-interface/

[GERGE]

Google clearly doesn't want Literata anywhere buy Google Play Books: "[...] the new Play Books type is meant to establish a recognisable visual identity for Google’s native eBook App and stylistically distinguish itself from other eReader competitors".

I believe they have succeeded here. Literata is very distinct and nice. A shame really, this type could be big if they had released it.

[David Munch]

Originally Posted by GERGE

It is different, and much better:

[Images violate Posting Guidelines for size - MODERATOR]

It is not open source.

Yeah, that actually makes quite a big difference for me personally. At first I assumed the top one was the new typeface as with the previous screenthis, so I thought "heck, it is worse!", but then realized it was the bottom one.

[John F]

Could someone explain the thinking of the spacing for the font. Looking at "motives", the spacing looks a little strange (to me); why the large spacing for "m o t" but the "tiv" looks very closely spaced?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by John F

Could someone explain the thinking of the spacing for the font. Looking at "motives", the spacing looks a little strange (to me); why the large spacing for "m o t" but the "tiv" looks very closely spaced?

Kerning, presumably. There's no kerning between "m o t" but there is between "t i v".