This looks like a cool typeface in how much it can vary itself, but the price feels extremely expensive, and I don't like having to keep track of which of my library of typefaces are allowed to be used on which projects based on which license I bothered to buy for that typeface. Saying that I want to load the font onto a video server raises the price for a single variant to $1500ish, and there is no clarity on what license you need for web videos. Does that count as a movie license, or a TV license, or a web site license?
So, tracing back to the original comment in this thread, Go and Rust were failures due to them having insufficient mindshare? If anything, people have often criticized the Rust community for marketing too much.
I though Adobe's font pricing was extreme... While I do appreciate the effort it takes to make a good typeface, this just seems a bit excessive compared to even other commercial alternative packages.
The definition of Display fonts is quite loose. Generally speaking, display fonts are made to grab attention by incorporating some more extravagant visual features (think something like Papyrus)
They are made for shorter texts that are often written in a bigger font. Again I talk about this in a very general way because it depends on the font and other factors. But usually this includes things like headings. So they would use slightly different proportions that wouldn't work that well at small sizes, but stand out more in bigger sizes compared to the "text" variant.
So in this case you would use Zed Text for all your larger text blocks and Zed Display for headings or maybe emphasized words. But to be honest, since they are pretty close visually, you can get away with using Zed Text for everything imho.
Is it just me, or is the lower-case s too tall? It sticks out like a sore thumb in the paragraphs, clearly taller than other x-height letters like e, o or r.
This made me think of Recursive Sans and Recursive Mono, two fonts which are also very malleable with multiple settings, but also open source.
https://www.recursive.design/
This looks like a cool typeface in how much it can vary itself, but the price feels extremely expensive, and I don't like having to keep track of which of my library of typefaces are allowed to be used on which projects based on which license I bothered to buy for that typeface. Saying that I want to load the font onto a video server raises the price for a single variant to $1500ish, and there is no clarity on what license you need for web videos. Does that count as a movie license, or a TV license, or a web site license?
Zed Text, not affiliated with the Zed text editor.
Nope, has nothing to do with https://github.com/zed-industries/zed-fonts
I think this ended up on the front page because people instinctively upvoted Zed-something.
I dislike this trend of common words being used for tools
It started with Go, then Rust, then Zed. Whatever happened to giving a unique name like Hadoop?
Moreover, these new names seem to not consider the ambiguity issues in browser searches.
Java and Ruby were created in 1995.
Lua in 1993.
Python in 1991.
C in 1972.
Lisp in 1960.
Big difference in using a genric name 45yrs ago vs using generic name post 2020
So the "trend* is that everyone didn't figure out the arbitrary deadline you came up with on when everyone should stop using regular words?
You don't use the same marketing strategies as people did in 1960 if you want to sell your product in 2026 unless you purposefully want to fail.
So, tracing back to the original comment in this thread, Go and Rust were failures due to them having insufficient mindshare? If anything, people have often criticized the Rust community for marketing too much.
I like it actually, i wouldn’t mind paying for fonts or icons if they were double digit priced.
I know some startups that love burning their money are the target audience, but still…
Capital I and lowercase L are identical, not ideal, but maybe not that much of a problem for the use cases of this font.
Judging by this page: https://www.typotheque.com/fonts/compare/196
You can activate an OpenType feature to change the shape of the l to be more visually distinct from the uppercase I
I though Adobe's font pricing was extreme... While I do appreciate the effort it takes to make a good typeface, this just seems a bit excessive compared to even other commercial alternative packages.
I don't get it. When would I use Zed Text and when Zed Display?
Display versions of typefaces are generally used for headings or larger type.
Text versions are used for longer text, and are usually optimised for smaller type sizes and readability.
The definition of Display fonts is quite loose. Generally speaking, display fonts are made to grab attention by incorporating some more extravagant visual features (think something like Papyrus)
They are made for shorter texts that are often written in a bigger font. Again I talk about this in a very general way because it depends on the font and other factors. But usually this includes things like headings. So they would use slightly different proportions that wouldn't work that well at small sizes, but stand out more in bigger sizes compared to the "text" variant.
So in this case you would use Zed Text for all your larger text blocks and Zed Display for headings or maybe emphasized words. But to be honest, since they are pretty close visually, you can get away with using Zed Text for everything imho.
Is it just me, or is the lower-case s too tall? It sticks out like a sore thumb in the paragraphs, clearly taller than other x-height letters like e, o or r.
you are absolutely right, it is motion-sickness inducing. how did this make it in to production?
I would pay $8 for this
I managed to get the bill to $6780.00 for my personal and small business website with <100k monthly views and a desktop license.
Looks quite nice except the lowercase s is too tall.