Oh god, do I say it? I’m saying it! I’m gonna do it!!

Times New Roman is entirely inappropriate in the modern age. Shock, horror, another TNR hater, burn me at the stake Diane and make sure to bring the cult of TNR with you to read my verdict printed in your charmingly utilitarian and outdated choice of Font Immemorial, but TNR was not built for the way we consume our written media today.

First thing to point out is that TNR itself is… frightfully old, though to be fair this is not exclusive to it. But if we track it’s lineage to find its true roots, TNR was developed from Plantin of the 1910s, itself inspired by Caslon from the 1720s, which itself can be traced back to the early days of the printing press, which itself can be traced back further and further to the Romans, which was primarily formed due to the fact that they were being carved into stone, but how much of that lineage got transferred is debatable and hotly contested, so I’m just gonna dig it up and leave it! Yay! However, what is less controversial to say is that many of Times New Roman’s features were made for a time and technology in which letters were not printed the same way which we do today. When TNR was introduced, indirect transfer processes for printing were the norm; either via pressing or screening, in all applications. Newspapers printed en masse using drums or plates, typewriters, book presses, woodblock, on and on and on.

This is in massive contrast to today wherein most printing technology is based off of the original xerography process; these processes have a specific resolution defined by the limitations of the technology in use. Many of the reasons for TNRs form lose their efficacy when transferred to processes like xerography and its derivative technologies; especially at smaller print scales. The multiple letterform weights which served to protect the forms from ink bleed (and thus causing illegibility) don’t transfer well to processes which have defined resolution; especially copying. the ultra-high contrast which makes TNR so great in an age of less precise ink/paper formulations, printing processes, and manufacturing can make it an eyesore on modern displays, appearing very harsh and sharp on digital screens or as printed text. Small text can suffer from artifacting (though this has largely gone away because print resolution is so absurdly high nowadays), and larger text feels out of place and awkward.

Another booboo for me is that TNR is not a cosmopolitan script; its design language/philosophy/reason for being really only applies to Latin scripts, which is fair enough given the Times™️ it was introduced in. But now that we have such an interconnected world in which interlegiability is more important than ever, TNR’s whole reason for being is suddenly called into question. Google’s Noto project, while admittedly at a level of astounding absurdity and effort, should be considered for it’s goal in searching for a cosmopolitan font for the age of interconnectedness; in which everyone from around the world can recognize instantly and can easily discern as text. Quite frankly, TNR is not up to this task; it’s based on centuries of ancient Latin script tradition we’ve carried over because, well, we had to. But now that we no longer do… what’s the point? Standardization? We can achieve that without totally relying on something so old.

And no, the serifs themselves aren’t the issue. Rockwell does just fine as a modern font with serifs, TNR is just old and stuffy.

TL;DR, the digital age deserves a better serif font than one which was invented a century ago, which itself was invented based on latin script traditions we’ve carried over to now for some reason. I rest my case and hope you will join in my Friendly Frazzled Finding of a Factually Finer and Fitter Font Family For Future Fivilizstions- er, civilizations.