Marco Rubio has degreed that the official font of the Department of State is being switched from Calibri to Times New Roman. Okay, he’s the Secretary of State and I guess he makes those decisions although it seems like a trivial issue to me.
But apparently there is an ideological issue here. Rubio is apparently saying that Calibri is part of DEI and that’s the reason he’s ordered its disuse.
Can somebody explain to me how a font can be DEI? Has Rubio offered any details of how he arrived at this conclusion?
Apparently it’s because Calibri was adopted because it’s supposed to be easier to read than Times New Roman for people with visual disabilities. And, hence, that’s DEI, and now branded as wrongthinking…though Rubio is cloaking the change back to Times New Roman as being driven by wanting documents to look more “professional” and “formal.”
Providing American sign language interpretation in press conferences “would severely intrude on the President’s prerogative to control the image he presents to the public,” Justice Department attorneys argued…
This article (limited gift link below) shows how both fonts appear to those with reduced vision. More than you want to know, perhaps.
I do prefer Times New Roman. But I am prepared to believe the official has too much time in their hands, or just likes talking about “Roman” things because history and empire and such. I am not a fan of Courier, the font used until 2004.
The reasoning to dump Calibri sounds suspect and stupid if true, but I generally hate the fact it became default when to me it is inferior to Times New Roman and Arial in every other way. I especially like Arial Narrow.
Okay, I was looking to see is there was something in Lucas de Groot’s background that a Republican might object to. Or if the Microsoft connection was an issue. Or even if this was a case of a Boomer decided that “back in my day we used Times New Roman.”
I also considered the possibility that Rubio was changing from Calibri to Times New Roman because Antony Blinken changed from Times New Roman to Calibri.
I hadn’t considered the disability issue. I’ll admit I wasn’t even aware that conservatives viewed disabled people as part of the DEI “problem”.
I do find it amusing that Rubio is claiming that Blinken’s decision to change fonts was a waste of taxpayer money and citing this as justification for his decision to change fonts.
If we’re not longer going to cater to this ridiculous notion of accessibility, does that mean we’re not going to build those ugly ramps outside public buildings? And why are elevators needed when there are perfectly good stairs everywhere?
The latter, in the minds of this crew, provides a “good justification” to cover for what’s really the former.
Though I must agree that Calibri was a lazy choice in its time (and even a weak choice for Microsoft to make the default font). Remember this is also the crew who wanted to require public buildings architecture to be in more classical styles, it figures they will think TNR looks more serious and that using a non-serif type probably looked to them like yet something else “the dirty hippies” or “snowflake millennials” are “ruining”.
And hey, ANYTHING that serves to enable anyone else to better compete with a white cishet male able-bodied anglophone Christian, or that gets people are not all that seen and heard, is presumed “unfair DEI”.
As far as that ASL interpreter goes, it’s probably best for the interpreter. How would you like to have a job interpreting that mishmash of verbiage that Trump typically spews?
There’s that - but I’m also trying to figure out how changing fonts even costs any money at all, unless you’re planning to do something stupid like immediately dispose of all the forms and business cards that have already been printed in the old font rather than waiting till the form expires or is revised or new business cards are being ordered. Do they even bother printing forms in advance anymore?
If you didn’t read the detailed NYT article, the legibility and accessibility of fonts depend on horizontal and vertical spacing, how low horizontal cross marks are, and whether the mind interprets letters as clearly distinct. Serifs make a font more formal, and may look grainy on pixelated computer screens, but otherwise don’t much affect readability. There are different types of vision change; Calibri may offer a very modest advantage here. And @What_Exit is correct on his assessment Times New Roman looks better than Calibri, and that Arial Narrow looks better still. What the US State Dept. prefers doesn’t actually affect me. It’s probably still better than Wingdings or Comic Sans.
