Top
Best
New

Posted by nmcfarl 4/16/2025

Kermit: A typeface for kids(microsoft.design)
360 points | 166 commentspage 2
MikeTheGreat 4/16/2025|
Is this open / free / something we can download and try out?

I did a super-brief search on the page but "download" didn't turn up any results. Does anyone else know where we can download this from?

MikeTheGreat 4/22/2025||
FWIW - 'Kermit' is now an option in desktop MS Word. Click on the font drop-down box and it's listed alphabetically. I assume it's in the web app too but haven't checked.

Interestingly, it was listed in the font drop-down but there was an icon next to it to "download this font". That was quick and painless and the resulting text looks like the one shown in the article.

So it might not be free, but if you've got MS Word you can at least download and try it out.

teqsun 4/16/2025|||
https://microsoft.design/wp-content/themes/wp-base-theme/dis...

https://microsoft.design/wp-content/themes/wp-base-theme/dis...

steeleduncan 4/16/2025|||
I don't know what the licence is, or the legality of using it, but the download urls for the fonts on the linked site are

- https://kermit-font.com/_css/KermitRoman-VF.otf

- https://kermit-font.com/_css/KermitItalic-VF.otf

dgreensp 4/16/2025|||
I don’t think it’s anything we get to use. All it says is if you are interested in the font, you can contact the company that made it. It’s weird. Sometimes these announcements are more like, “We commissioned this cool thing and made it free,” like when Microsoft came out with their latest emojis.
c0balt 4/16/2025|||
There us no mentioned license, neither on the original post or the website. It is only mentioned that it will be added to M$ office indicating (to me) that it will be proprietary/part of the product.
idle_zealot 4/16/2025||
They're using it on the page, which presumably means that your browser already downloaded it! You can probably dig around the page source/network tab to find it.
cosmotic 4/16/2025||
When new fonts are released, they always include what they tried to improve: readability, comprehension, etc. Just once I'd like to know what they sacrificed.
parsimo2010 4/16/2025||
In this case they sacrificed a feeling of professionalism. Helvetica is "serious" and used by real publications. Kermit would probably not be used by a major publication (like NYT or WaPo) because people wouldn't take them seriously even if it's easier to read.
codexb 4/16/2025|||
Variable font width, height, and kerning is more difficult and slower to read. It's fine if you're reading a short childrens book at out loud, but if you're reading an entire novel silently formatted like that, it would become exhausting quickly.
bjourne 4/16/2025||
In this case its subpixel rendering on low-dpi displays.
ziofill 4/16/2025||
Wow, the lag as I scroll the page makes me sea sick, I had to stop reading. Why reimplement scrolling??
typeofhuman 4/16/2025||
I came to post the same thing. I can't stand when sites hijack document scrolling.
pcthrowaway 4/16/2025||
I wanted to read and enjoy this article, it looked so interesting. But same, the scroll hijacking makes it unreadable.

I don't understand how anyone focusing on design or UX can think this is a good idea.

Pxtl 4/16/2025||
Maybe it's easy for kids to read, but I found the font too bold and the letters too close-together to read comfortably. I gave up before I could read all their justifications for those decisions.

But that might've also been the weird scrolling behavior of the page that ruined it for me.

abanana 4/16/2025||
> letters too close-together

The CSS has { letter-spacing: -.04rem; } It's across the entire site - no exclusion for this page (or for their .kermit-font class). So it appears they've missed the fact that they're altering the look-and-feel of the very font they're presenting in this post.

chrismorgan 4/16/2025|||
Yeah, bad site. Scrolljacking, non-zero letter-spacing on all body text… both things you should never under any circumstances do.
Pxtl 4/16/2025|||
I assume that's to work around the high width of the font. Information density seems too low for paragraphs of text with that width.

I could see this current version (without the spacing hack) being the "easy-reader" version, and then make a "YA reader" variant that's lower weight and horizontallu narrower.

zamadatix 4/16/2025||
This letter spacing was the case for the site prior to the Kermit font post.
SirMaster 4/16/2025||
Yeah, I found this a lot harder to read and more strain on my eyes than something simple like the font used in the comments here.

It definitely seems too thick to me.

flusteredBias 4/16/2025||
This is anecdotal and I hope someone who has some research experience can say whether this is true or not generally, but I recently got a Kindle and found that if I use really large font sizes where there are fewer than 50 words on a page it's easier for me to stay engaged. Maybe this has something to do with cognitive load or chunking information. Some fonts look quite a bit better at these large sizes. So for me I don't think typography alone is sufficient. I think the interaction between a large font size and a typography that looks pleasing at a large font size helps with engagement.
hajile 4/16/2025||
I knew someone who would with an opaque ruler with a hole on one end. They would read the words through the hole and I guess it helped them stay focused on just the word or two they were reading. It sounds somewhat similar to what you are describing.
WillAdams 4/16/2025|||
The normal standard for line length is 2--3 alphabets worth of text.

I find that shorter ones break up and slow down my reading, while too-long lines make reading wearisome to the point where I actually bought the Kindle version of:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37858510-the-inklings-an...

to read rather than the print edition.

JKCalhoun 4/16/2025|||
At the same time, don't all fonts, typographically, look better larger?

I don't know what the DPI of the Kindle display is. But since you called it out specifically, perhaps the issue you are having is more specific to that device. Contrast with how you perceive reading on a high-DPI laptop display perhaps.

browningstreet 4/16/2025||
When I've done that I feel like I'm reading a text message, not a book (fiction or non-fiction). Possibly not a universal experience.
trustinmenowpls 4/16/2025||
Yikes, I gave up reading this after about 20 seconds, idk what it was but this font is unreadable.
tantalor 4/16/2025||
Agreed, this is hard to read.

My initial impression was I can't read it fast, and when I try to read it fast then I miss words and have to go back.

If anything, it forces you to slow down. Maybe that's good for people who are learning to read. But for experienced readers, that seems bad.

On the plus side, the feeling of reading this is nice. It is easy on the eyes.

This might be a good fit for educational material. But I would not use this for journalism or literature.

dole 4/16/2025|||
I feel like the lowercase lacks risers, it's kerned too tightly to be legible quickly. It's ornamental but I don't feel easier, it's more difficult to read if anything.
Someone1234 4/16/2025|||
It feels fatiguing to read; and I'm supposedly in one of their target demographics.

Personally I've always found Monospace fonts the easiest like Microsoft's Courier New or Consolas. It feels like you're time travelling back to the 1980s visually, but they're so comfortable to read because your brain can make assumptions which are accurate.

WXLCKNO 4/16/2025|||
I found it enjoyable to read.

Obviously some placebo effect from the context but it felt fun.

lanyard-textile 4/16/2025||
This is like a world-changing font for me, isn’t that funny :) I have acute BVD and it is significantly easier for me to read.
speedgoose 4/16/2025||
I find the font very readable and somewhat unique.

I would have preferred a double-storey a instead of single-storey ɑ. I find it more readable and easier to distinguish against a o.

Though I can understand the need to be similar to handwriting. I'm guessing they had a long debate to decide between a and ɑ.

singpolyma3 4/16/2025|
Using single storey a is the most fundamental thing a font for early readers needs to do. Double storey a only exists in computer typography
yorwba 4/17/2025|||
Double-storey a is based on handwritten A with an exaggerated right-hand downward stroke (before distinguished upper and lower case was a thing) and historically precedes single-storey ɑ. So teaching a different handwriting style closer to printed fonts would also work.
quuxplusone 4/17/2025|||
"Double storey a" refers to the lowercase "a" with a sort of bent-over bit at the top, distinct from the handwritten cursive "a". So you can say it relates to "typography," perhaps, but certainly not that it's limited to "computer" typography.

Early readers — anyone learning the letters for the purpose of reading — will need to recognize the double-storey "a" in order to read books, road signs, or even a smartphone's pop-up keyboard. And certainly to read "The Cat in the Hat" (which is set in Century Schoolbook, according to a quick google).

Sure, we don't (often?) write it like that in cursive, but we read it that way in almost all written material we encounter in our entire lives. You just don't notice because you're used to it — it's the "natural" way for an "a" to look in print.

...Now let's do looptail "g" versus opentail "g"! At least for that one you'll have the smartphone keyboard on the opentail side of the debate (and "The Cat in the Hat" on the correct, looptail side). ;)

dimitrisnl 4/16/2025||
I remember this getting posted again, on a different domain, and with different messaging, with no mention of kids.
ActionHank 4/16/2025|
I'm also not buying the point that it's for kids any more than comic sans is.
Freak_NL 4/16/2025||
Trying to find out how this font is licenced is painfully impossible on both the linked Microsoft website and the atrocious https://kermit-font.com/ homepage.

Regardless of the claimed merits of this font (I'm not dyslectic and this font just strains my eyes), I hold the opinion that any effort like this by a megacorp like Microsoft should be approached by them from a charitable angle. If this font isn't permissively licenced (I.e., Microsoft bought it and liberated it from creator Underware) and is just an Office exclusive, it is pointless, and possibly harmless (like that font which OpenDyslexic is based on).

interloxia 4/16/2025||
I found the following at the end of https://microsoft.design/articles/introducing-kermit-a-typef...

"The basic styles of Kermit (Regular, Bold, Italic, and Bold Italic) are available today in Office, with the remaining 38 styles arriving in early May."

It's listed here: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/cloud-fonts-in-of...

I didn't find an actual license. The typography faq presumably applies to the cloud fonts: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/fonts/font-faq

silveira 4/16/2025||
+1 The first thing I did was search for the license. The license is what can make it or break it in this kind of project. The absence of clear and permissive licensing is a red flag for me.
nkrisc 4/16/2025|
I thought the font was overall very pleasant easy to read… except for every variation of it beyond the standard weight. Every thin, bold, and italicized version of it I thought was actually quite difficult to read.
More comments...