There's a great TEDxExeter talk by a colleague of mine, Simon Peyton-Jones, about the recent advances in the English lower school 'computer science' curriculum. Like all of his slide decks he uses Comic Sans throughout. Depressingly, though inevitably, one of the YouTube commenters berates him for the font choice, stating that his use of Comic Sans is "the design equivalent of putting a giant image of a middle finger on the screen; an insult to education". This prompts a further comment that points to 41:32 in another of Simon's talks where Simon is asked by an audience member why he uses Comic Sans. Here is Simon's reply:

This is a very funny question, "Why use Comic Sans?" So, all my talks use Comic Sans and I frequently see remarks like 'Simon Peyton-Jones, great talk about Haskell but why did he use Comic Sans?' but nobody's ever been able to tell me what is wrong with it. It's a nice legible font, I like it. So until somebody explains to me ... Ah, I understand that it's meant to be a bit naff, but I don't care about naff stuff, I care about being able to read it. So if you have got a sort of ... some rational reasons why I should not then I'll listen to them. But just being unfashionable? I don't care.

Simon is talking off-the-cuff here, so I think by "rational" he means affecting legibility, reading speed, comprehension, and things like that. Are there any studies relating fonts across those kind of measures? If so where does Comic Sans come in the ranking?

(N.B. I cannot help thinking it is a good design choice that he's made. He has deliberately chosen a font that no-one versed in the design of slides would choose. It suggests, in my mind at least, a kind of authenticity; but the argument between brand adherence and authenticity is one I keep losing.)

  • 49
    They are the Crocs of the design world
    – SaturnsEye
    Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 13:46
  • 35
    Interesting. My 21 year old daughter will not let me leave the house in my Crocs and she died of shame the day I wore them in to work at the weekend. I do not understand that either!
    – dumbledad
    Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 13:47
  • 110
    I don't know why, but somehow, this question makes me feel deeply uncomfortable. Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 15:17
  • 26
    Part of me hating it is because it is used by every daft, naff, idiot trying to be "friendly". Imposing on me a friendliness and "chumminess" I do not want or find appropriate. I have seen it used in footers in emails from government employees ("We have gone through your application, and you are guilty of gross economical misconduct, we will come and take your car, your tv, your garage, wife and all your sofware. (comic sans signature in four colours"). Hate it.
    – benteh
    Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 16:25
  • 22
    This image comes to mind...
    – Neil
    Commented Sep 8, 2014 at 10:38

13 Answers 13


At its core, There isn't really anything wrong with Comic Sans. It was designed for a purpose - comic-book-style speech bubbles primarily. It did a good job at that - if you're going to have Microsoft Bob talk to you on a screen, Comic Sans feels more 'right' than Times New Roman.

Three things have contributed to Comic Sans' unpopularity, in my view.

First, exposure. It shows up everywhere, and it's distinct enough for people to notice. Your average person doesn't look at Helvetica, Arial, Gotham, and Franklin Gothic and consciously perceive them as all that different, but Comic Sans was comparatively unique and readily available. Sometimes when things become really popular really fast, there is backlash from people who don't like popular things.

Second, and this is more of a legitimate critique, is appropriateness. The Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, etc. - these are formal documents with a high degree of gravitas about them. If Jefferson had passed the quill to the nearest child in the room, the result would have been something that the King wouldn't have taken seriously.

A Gothic blackletter is fitting for the masthead of The New York Times. Comic Sans would not be. Conversely, having your average superhero talk with a Gothic blackletter in a comic book would also feel inappropriate.

enter image description here

So why is Comic Sans "appropriate" for certain situations? It most closely resembles informal handwriting, and thus conveys informality. If humans didn't write in cursive and we never saw any font other than Comic Sans, we'd never know the difference! But we do and we have, so such a connotation exists.

Without knowing anything about this guy, it seems like he'd be the kind of person who'd wear socks under his Crocs because it's comfortable and he doesn't care. And that's fine - Crocs are indeed lightweight and comfortable, and protect you from the heat and irregularities of the road. But if you're running for president or trying to get a job in the C-Suite of a Fortune 500 company, you put on dress shoes because that's what people in that setting do.

A third reason will sound snobby, but I think would explain a lot about how designers tend to think about this sort of thing. Imagine that you're a wine connoisseur and, everywhere you go, you see people not only buying boxed wine, but saying it's great wine and that they know something about wine because they found this box in the state store.

The idea is that trained designers don't really like people using Publisher anyways, so they're more inclined to hate on designs that are done by amateurs who pick Comic Sans because "it looks fun" or whatever. Then, once you've established that it's cool to pick on Comic Sans, everyone gets lumped into that group.

  • 8
    Great answer but I'd like to push a bit on 'appropriateness'. When I look at illuminated manuscripts the cheeky drawings that monks add to the Bible make me smile, rather than make me angry.
    – dumbledad
    Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 13:44
  • 19
    @dumbledad - You're probably not the type to make angry comments about font choices on YouTube, either :) I really do think that a lot of Comic Sans hate is bandwagon hate...I think the same thing happened with stuff like disco, and Nickelback. A third case could be made that how a designer feels about someone using Comic Sans is analogous to how a gourmet chef feels about someone going to McDonald's for a hamburger.
    – Brendan
    Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 13:49
  • 5
    While the effect described in this answer does exist, it doesn't explain why the font was originally decried. It is considered poor from a font design perspective, due to inconsistent edges and angles. I kinda expect that sort of thing to be mentioned in any good answer on a graphic design site.
    – trlkly
    Commented Sep 6, 2014 at 4:50
  • 40
    Confirmed: does not work.
    – wchargin
    Commented Sep 7, 2014 at 3:31
  • 2
    @dumbledad said formal studies simply don't exist. The issues around comic sans are mostly on the subjective and aesthetic side rather than objective legibility studies (which, again, are few and far between and usually inconclusive and/or overly narrow in context).
    – DA01
    Commented Sep 7, 2014 at 17:03

There are technical, compatibility, legal, authenticity, and subjective reasons for not using it. I'm going to go through each in turn listing out the reasons with examples and references.

Starting with:

xkcd comic sans windows 7 beta

Hitler freaks out over Comic Sans

Technical Reasons

There are a handful of purely technical reasons not to use it.

The first, was a lack of italic variants. Comic Sans Pro attempted to correct this, and the new variants were merged into Comic Sans by Microsoft in Windows 8.

Second, Comic Sans just isn't a very good comic font, it has sub-optimal and wonky characters with poor kerning:

enter image description here

It should be noted that despite this, comic sans scores very high for readability in some studies - Diemand-Yauman, C.; Oppenheimer, D. M.; Vaughan, E. B. (2011). "Fortune favors the bold (and the italicized): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes".

Comic Sans also comes in for criticism over reading disabilities, and as inappropriate for large blocks of text.

Here is architect small block on the left, and comic sans on the right:

enter image description here enter image description here

Now while Comic Sans is much beloved by many teachers and self-promoted readability experts, in fact you’ll see from the above passages that relative to the font to its left it has quite a number of fancy letter features, the other passage is more like what you imagine the diligent teacher would have written on the board. Probably, the belief you hear sometimes about Comic Sans being highly readable is really that the teachers, well, they just like it.

taken from http://typoface.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/typefaces-for-disabilities.html#comicasb

Examples of fancy letter forms include the euro sign:

enter image description here

“The EU was going to sue us over that.” - Vincent Connare

While it comes in for criticism, it's also recommended for use by others. Few studies have been done to prove this however, and most support of Comic Sans justifies itself using simplicity, and personal anecdotes ( "well my brother is dyslexic and he says.." )

Of note, Comic Sans does have some features that help it in this regard, e.g. asymmetric glyphs for b/d, p/q etc

Here is the British Dyslexia Associations stance:

We asked dyslexia forum members. Only a few people responded. So it may not be a burning issue for most dyslexic people. It is likely that line length, line spacing and font size are just as important. Some loved Comic Sans, but others hated it. Some liked Century Gothic and teachers like purchasable Sassoon. On-screen and print preferences may differ.

More information on dyslexia and typefaces with regards to Comic Sans

Here is a Skeptics Stack Exchange question "Is the Comic Sans font easier to read for dyslexics?"

Microsofts own Comic Sans specimen at Comic Sans Café cites:

Comic Sans is the groovy script font which comes with the Windows 95 Plus! pack and is now available for the Apple Macintosh. Although it might be seen as a novelty typeface, which is great for titles, it's also extremely readable on-screen at small sizes, making it a useful text face.

enter image description here

The above quote and the full Microsoft Comic Sans website with full specimen can be found here


Compatibility-wise, Comic Sans is also not as widely available as people think. See this question on superuser for Linux support of Comic Sans MS, using comic sans does not guarantee compatibility.

If you're on Ubuntu, here is how you can install the Microsoft Core Fonts.

"If this page DOES NOT look like Comic Sans, you are probably using Linux!" - The Uncyclopedia page on Comic Sans


Legally, Comic Sans is not an open and free font, it's just very, very widespread, and there is a little known request for usage license from Microsoft & Monotype. Usage in css @font-face also requires a fonts.com subscription. Sadly the author does not receive royalties as Vincent was a staffer when he produced the font. The main reason people can use it is because Microsoft Apple and others pay for these licenses.

Authenticity & Sincerity

There are authenticity reasons for not using Comic Sans. While most of these are undone by the simple fact that Comic Sans is a digital font, the idea of comic fonts is that they are analogous to real-world attempts at lettering by hand.


enter image description here


Or this xkcd:

enter image description here

Now compare those to this comic set entirely in Comic Sans for an example of how effective Comic Sans is as a Comic font:

enter image description here

Some good points regarding sincerity were made as part of an Art installation called the Sincerity machine:

click to play

Click above to play

The sincerity machine was a typewriter set entirely in Comic Sans


However, there are these subjective reasons not to use it:

  • Fonts with superior design and technical features such as Comic Neue exist
  • Comic sans was built for comics in an age of low resolution screens. It was never intended to be printed on billboards and placed in powerpoint slides
  • Comic sans is not a serious font, and use in serious applications is either satire or indicates a lack of seriousness or professionalism
  • There are more legible and readable fonts out there

Vincent Connare

There's also the testimony of the author of Comic Sans:

enter image description here


In his own words given to an article at deezen.com:

"I think people who don't like Comic Sans don't know anything about design," Connare told Dezeen. "They don't understand that in design you have a brief."

He later compares the font to pink tracksuits and Justin Bieber:

"There are 200-300 fonts installed on every computer but people pick Comic Sans because it is different and it looks more like handwriting and does not look like an old school text book," explained Connare. "It is a personal decision. The same could be asked of why do people like Ugg boots, Justin Bieber or pink tracksuits."

"Comic Sans matched the brief, the brief of the entire Microsoft Consumer Division to put a 'Computer in Every Home' and to make something popular for the people of these homes and their kids. Comic Sans is loved by kids, mums and many dads. So it did its job very well. It matched the brief!"

For more information, here is a history of Comic Sans by Mashable

  • 10
    Comic Sans also has terrible kerning, and isn't even all that good for comic lettering as a result.
    – fluffy
    Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 18:13
  • 4
    Note that Vincent's comments on Comic Sans are incredibly sarcastic.
    – DA01
    Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 19:04
  • 3
    Why do you assume that "relative to the font to its left it has quite a number of fancy letter features" is a factor that might make it less readable? In my experience the visual shape of words makes it easier for me (a severe dyslexic) and my wife (partially sighted) to read. Surely that would argue the other way. Indeed the example you gave (with different text on each side though) showed comic sans to be easier for me to read. I think your reasoning needs more padding out. Commented Sep 6, 2014 at 8:31
  • 9
    +2 - this is one of the most exhaustive non-community answers I've seen in my life on SE
    – user21087
    Commented Sep 8, 2014 at 19:20
  • 2
    Updated with a note on authenticity as a comic book font. @DavidRicherby I didn't find anything about that, but if you can find a reference I'll include it Commented Sep 10, 2014 at 16:00

Comic Sans is a poorly made font because it succeeds neither at resembling actual comic book handwriting, nor printed lettering. For comparison, here is a well designed comic book font called Crimefighter BB.

Crimefighter BB

The above example is italicized and all caps, so while a great font for comics, it is not exactly all-purpose. But there are plenty of other great handwriting fonts that are, such as Felt Tip Roman. This has natural flow, line width variation, and feels comfortably human.

Felt Tip Roman

So what would a real person actually have to do to write in handwriting that looks like Comic Sans? They would have to use a sharpie to slowly and carefully make each stroke in a sort of perfectly calculated ugliness, pausing for just long enough to get a subtle yet unconvincing bleed dot at the stroke stops, and taking great care to make sure the slant is not consistent between letters. It looks like the result of a cyborg trying to imitate a grade school student's handwriting. Try to write Comic Sans. Try it until you get it to actually look like Comic Sans, and I bet the unnaturalness of it will drive you mad. People like designers, who are sensitive to the movement of line strokes pick up on this awkward clash of mechanical and faked organic form and become nauseous or irritable as a result.

Just look at this abomination:

Comic Sans

The deliberately calculated hooks on the uppercase C and lowercase S. But paradoxically those same hooks do not appear on the lowercase C or uppercase S. Look at the lowercase A~E and how they are obviously traced over perfect circles, but intentionally off just enough to try to make it look like they're not. Observe how the uppercase Q is not only on a different slant than the uppercase O, but also rounder and wider for no reason. Notice how the A and E have strokes that cross slightly through other strokes, as if to say "we realize real handwriting has imperfections, so we added some planned imperfections". Then they made uppercase F, H, I, and K without such cross-over, to you know, not seem too out of control. The creators meticulously calculated what they thought sloppy should look like. Why do the loops of uppercase D and R droop, while those of P and B do not? Also the uppercase M has no business flaring out at the bottom like that. It's not only the uppercase letters, the lowercase ones and the numbers have many problems too, just more difficult to describe and I don't want to write a novel here. the bottom line is no human would ever write like this! And if they did they would require psychological evaluation.

When Comic Sans is appropriate

There are certain use cases when a bad font is exactly the right font.

Take for example this brilliantly executed Stack Exchange Time Machine!

Stack Exchange 2019 April Fools - The Stack Exchange Time Machine

If this is the effect you're going for, any other font simply won't do!

Finding alternatives

As many of you know, Google Fonts offers a large selection of fonts that can be used commercially for free. Here's a list (with interactive previews) of some that meet the criteria as alternatives:

Printed Handwriting Google Fonts That Are Better Than Comic Sans

Webpage screenshot ↓

Printed Handwriting Google Fonts That Are Better Than Comic Sans

Because friends don't let friends use Comic Sans. :-)

  • 9
    +1 very good point. Comic Sans isn't really a great example of a type of face where you'd maybe consider using Comic Sans. In other words, in the situations where Comic Sans may be an appropriate typeface, there's still so many more typefaces that would be even better for the particular situation.
    – DA01
    Commented Sep 8, 2014 at 4:21
  • 2
    The last paragraph is the only part of this question that is not "pure bashing", the only objective part of the question. Still, it rescues it from a downvote. (and on another matter, there is a problem with Felt Tip Roman: It looks a bit more "aggressive" than Comic Sans).
    – Medinoc
    Commented Sep 8, 2014 at 14:36
  • @Medinoc, do you mean "question" or "answer"?
    – dumbledad
    Commented Sep 8, 2014 at 15:36
  • 1
    D'oh! I meant answer. And it's now far too late to edit... :-(
    – Medinoc
    Commented Sep 8, 2014 at 16:10
  • 2
    @Mentalist the idea that tracing out Comic Sans by hand to give some feel for how it works as a handwriting font is fascinating and had not occurred to me. But I am struck by how difficult it is to trace out someone else's handwriting too, so although you'd gain insight, I'm not sure it serves as a great measure of handwrityness.
    – dumbledad
    Commented Sep 9, 2014 at 6:28

How you write is like how you dress. It's not about practicality, it's about how you present yourself. It reflects how much thought and effort you put into your appearance. It strongly influences your audience's first impression before you even open your mouth, and it colors what you have to say throughout the presentation.

In this metaphor, Futura would be a three-piece suit, Times New Roman would be a comfortable pair of jeans, and Comic Sans is the equivalent of wearing pajamas on stage. If you're not doing it for effect, then it indicates you've put zero effort into appearance.

  • 15
    He does have sandals on, so I think one could argue that the design choices are consistent.
    – dumbledad
    Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 13:58
  • "Comic Sans is the equivalent of wearing pajamas" = nicely put! That sums up things quite nicely.
    – DA01
    Commented Sep 7, 2014 at 17:07
  • Only with your set of assumptions (commenters). It is more regocniceable as hand writing, it doesnt have to mean it is informal, that is only what the name suggests. But it looks like a person wrote it. Formal doesnt mean robotic, thought it might be unpersonal in one sense as in not being personable. But people relates what others have written, my thoughts about comic sans is that it is badly named, but it is a nice font and good be used for very formal letters, if only if wasnt for the assumptions people preload on to the name.
    – cognacc
    Commented Sep 8, 2014 at 10:01
  • 5
    @DawnPaladin it's actually not a very good typeface for lettering comics, either--especially given the fact that there are dozens upon dozens of typefaces designed specifically for comic book lettering. Comic Sans is in many ways a typeface without a particular purpose.
    – DA01
    Commented Sep 8, 2014 at 16:59
  • 1
    "It reflects how much thought and effort you put into your appearance" This is absolutely not true, I myself am a complete retard when it comes to design. I can put all the "thought and effort" I have into something, but that does not guarantee that all that effort is reflected in my work.
    – Kevin
    Commented Sep 17, 2014 at 8:08

There's nothing wrong using Comic Sans when it's appropriate: for comics (duh), informal publications, and applications targeted towards children. It's meant to have both legible and handwritten attributes. Here are two completely legitimate examples:

Comic Sans usage examples

Since it's a font that comes packaged with Windows and the majority of users don't download or install extra fonts, it's easy for people to spot when it's misused. It's become an "inside joke" to mock the use of Comic Sans.

I wouldn't have chosen Comic Sans for a TEDx presentation based on the audience, which appears to be only adults. If it were a presentation targeted towards children I'm sure it would have been fine, but a TEDx talk strikes me as a very formal occasion and the use of Comic Sans sticks out like a sore thumb to me.

I deal with fonts a lot and as a result I have my own prejudices. I especially roll my eyes any time I see Algerian used (most famously in the Patrón logo). It should convey a "classy" appearance, but all I see is cliché. If you're opening up an Italian restaurant in America, I think there might be a law that you must use Brush Script MT for your logo or menus. And Trajan is your go to font for movie titles or academic institutions (that N is easy to spot once you know to look for it!)

  • 20
    Papyrus, as well. It really bummed me out when Avatar used it for subtitles - you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a movie and you go with a MS default font that is supposed to evoke ancient Egyptian papyri?
    – Brendan
    Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 13:51
  • 4
    Papyrus in Avatar and Serenity. Where is science fiction going!? And I actually disagree, @JohnB - we should not dumb down children with presenting them with pre-chewed ideas of what some daft pedagogue think is "child friendly". Treat kids as babies for too long and you have some serious idiocy on your hands.
    – benteh
    Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 16:39
  • 6
    Comic Sans isn't even a good comic book font. Looking at your example, the angles of the crossbars in the E and H are haphazard, the uprights of the U are strangely bent and misaligned, the B is too narrow, the H too wide. Compare it to actual professional comic book lettering, such as Tom Orzechowski's Thomas Book face. serifsup.com/fonts.htm Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 17:55
  • 8
    StackExchange Day Care Center = Minecraft Server :)
    – DA01
    Commented Sep 7, 2014 at 17:05
  • 4
    Using comic sans when dealing with children over the age of 5 is Very patronizing. Most kids like to be treated like adults, so don't go over board on the rainbows and the "kid" fonts. Commented Sep 7, 2014 at 17:37

Comic Sans MS scores extremely well in readability, particularly for educational content (like Higgs-Boson announcement):

Fortune favors the bold (and the Italicized): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes

Which Fonts Do Children Prefer to Read Online?

Only designers really take issue with Comic Sans MS because of how it is designed breaking nearly all "formal" principles and then looking child-like or cartoonish. It's more of a tradition than anything with actual merit. Study after study shows its an effective font, in fact it was designed by Microsoft specifically for legibility. Designers particularly take offense because of how it finds its way into places that have a tradition of professionalism such as Higgs-Boson. Where I live it's even on the side of police cars.

A friend of mine wrote this piece about the Comic Sans font on his art blog:

Do Not Use Comic Sans

What he says regarding the police vehicles:

It’s not just inappropriate – it’s disrespectful of the importance of city police, and of their relationship with the community at large.

enter image description here

While one may seem more sincere and be perceived more professional. It is without a doubt more difficult to read than the Comic Sans MS.

  • 4
    Those studies really don't produce useful conclusions. They only compare a very tiny set of typefaces in a very small context.
    – DA01
    Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 14:16
  • 21
    I'm just annoyed that both cars have unnecessary quotation marks. Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 17:08
  • 7
    @CharlesWood perhaps they've very necessary as they are stating it sarcastically. :)
    – DA01
    Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 19:06
  • 2
    That said, using comic sans for a serious tagline is already sarcastic in nature...
    – DA01
    Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 19:06
  • 8
    @Newb trivia: when applied as livery, the american flag shall have the blue star field (the 'union') facing 'the pole' or, more simply, forward. In other words, when placed on a moving vehicle, it should face the direction that a real flag would be blowing in the same location.
    – DA01
    Commented Sep 8, 2014 at 4:19

Using Comic Sans in your Powerpoint presentation at a TED Talk is the equivalent of wearing a Sponge Bob T-Shirt and a pair of sweat pants while giving your Powerpoint presentation.

There's nothing wrong with a cartoon t-shirt and pair of sweat pants. They are comfortable. Versatile. Affordable. But simply 'say' the wrong thing for a TED talk.

When people cringe at the use of Comic Sans, it's not necessarily the typeface itself, but the context it's being used it. In some case it's because it's in a context that is simple over-used or a lazy implementation (like elementary teachers) or simply in a context where it just isn't appropriate to begin with (such as in a slide deck at a TED talk.)

  • 2
    Part of me hating it is because it is used by every daft, naff, idiot trying to be "friendly". Imposing on me a friendliness and "chumminess" I do not want or find appropriate. I have seen it used in footers in emails from government employees ("We have gone through your application, and you are guilty of gross economical misconduct, we will come and take your car, your tv, your garage, wife and all your sofware. (comic sans signature in four colours"). Hate it. – Benteh 51 secs ago edit
    – benteh
    Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 16:27
  • One time, I got graphs for inclusion in a book from a PPT presentation detailing Heart Attack Survival numbers. Yup -- in Comic Sans. (Sadly its captions did not mention the audience reaction.)
    – Jongware
    Commented Oct 18, 2014 at 14:39

When I'm in the audience, a presentation in Comic Sans just makes me feel like like the presenter is thinking I'm stupid, like I'm at the wrong place. It's like being talked to in Simple English. Imagine attending a talk on Haskell and the presenter starts with "We want to write letters on our computer that tell our computer what to do." — it's just inappropriate.

Incidentally, I often feel people treat children like they are stupid. But they are not stupid, they are just inexperienced people. So using Comic Sans when talking to children is no excuse in my opinion. It's similar to how people talk with animals:

You're a kitty!

  • 1
    My wife runs a preschool. There they use Comic Sans, not because they are talking down to the kids but because they need a font that uses letter forms that the kids are learning for themselves, i.e. an 'a' like this and not like this (there's a technical name for such fonts, but I cannot remember what it is). There are many other fonts with this characteristic, but they are not as well known nor as readily available for early years practitioners as Comic Sans
    – dumbledad
    Commented Sep 8, 2014 at 11:25
  • 3
    It's amazing how many xkcd strips seem to apply to Comic Sans... :)
    – Vincent
    Commented Sep 8, 2014 at 12:22
  • @dumbledad you've already got some linkrot in that comment.
    – TylerH
    Commented Sep 8, 2014 at 15:36
  • 1
    It is called a two and three storey 'a'.
    – allcaps
    Commented Sep 8, 2014 at 21:21
  • 2
    @allcaps Thanks for the technical name, but isn't it a single-storey and double-storey 'a'? Neither are three storey, no? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A
    – dumbledad
    Commented Sep 9, 2014 at 5:37

There are two anwsers I can think of. First: it's not about being good or bad per se. Black text on dark blue background for example is bad because it's hard if not impossible to read. Comic Sans is not unreadable (as other answers have explained, it actually scores quite well on readability). What it is: overused. The same goes for the default powerpoint templates - no longer original in any way. An additional factor with Comic Sans is that it seems to be especially popular in kids/school environments; we've almost bred a generation to associate Comic Sans with childhood, so you might not want to use it in your company's quarterly figures presentation or your CV that you want to look really grown-up and professional.

For the second answer, designer David Kadavy explains it better than I could: http://kadavy.net/blog/posts/why-you-hate-comic-sans/ .

  • That David Kadavy article is brilliant - very informative. Thanks.
    – dumbledad
    Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 14:32
  • That's exactly the reason why I use Comic Sans for my resume, this way I am sure not to be hired by people who hasn't read it
    – smonff
    Commented Sep 7, 2014 at 15:54
  • 1
    Could you include an outline of what the link contains? Commented Sep 8, 2014 at 18:11
  • Kadavy shows that if you squint at Comic Sans (or apply a blur filter), you see an uneven picture with darker and lighter patches whereas a more professional font would give a more uniform shade of gray across the whole text. Why? Take the letter e: in a good font, the size of the eye, the size of the aperture and the widths of the different parts of the stroke would all be in deliberate proportion to make the letter look more even. Comic Sans uses a fixed-size "paintbrush" for all strokes (not bad per se but makes things harder) and does not balance the proportions.
    – user13562
    Commented Sep 10, 2014 at 16:06

Comic Sans is not a bad font per se but it's been so overused in the wrong contexts (such as announcing the discovery of the Higgs-Boson) that it really annoys designers in the end, it's become a joke and sites like Comic Sans Criminal are there to testify.

As for that very specific case, I don't think the TED audience is the proper audience to have slides in Comic Sans. It's like showing up at a party that requires formal attire in a clown suit. Now if the speaker is trying to brand himself by being a font rebel and using improper fonts purposefully, that's something else. Legibility wise, I don't have numbers for you. Personnally, I have a much harder time reading quickly in Comic Sans but then again I tend to avoid it.

Using just Comic Sans is definitely not a good thing in my opinion because it doesn't have enough weights (regular, bold, condensed, etc.) to create proper hierarchy in the text other than by using different font sizes, thus limiting your options in laying out the text and making it more digestible for the audience.

  • 1
    I'm taking the downvote must be for "Comic Sans is not a bad font per say", otherwise I would like to hear the reason for it ;-)
    – curious
    Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 13:39
  • I did look at Comic Sans Criminal before posting here, but I was unhappy with their criticism: that it was designed to be child-like in appearance, that it is used in lots of unexpected places where its comic nature seems out-of-place, and that although it is very legible for dyslexics there may be even more legible fonts. (PS The -1 is not from me.)
    – dumbledad
    Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 13:41
  • 4
    No idea why there's a downvote, but as a piece of minor passing pedantry, the whole anti-comic sans thing has been going for at least 10 years or more. The Higgs Boson announcement was more of a crowning glory than the thing that triggered the campaign. Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 13:47
  • 1
    I downvoted it because I don't feel you in any way answered the question as to why, and you without any validation about the legibility (not supplying numbers), I also find it inaccurate. There is some validity in saying there's not weights but lots of fonts don't have weights.
    – Ryan
    Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 13:53
  • 9
    "Comic Sans is not a bad font per say" - that part made me wince, but not enough to downvote. s/per say/per se/ Commented Sep 5, 2014 at 15:14

I have just read The non-designer's design book by Robin Williams - a great book for beginners by the way.

Looking at what I have learned, I can find violations of all four principles (as there are proximity, alignment, repetition and contrast) in Simon Peyton-Jones's presentation.

However, many people watching the presentation are probably not aware of those principles. But there's one thing that makes them feel uncomfortable: the Comic Sans font. That's what they recognize, that's what they can name.

The rest is just strengthening their feeling, in a subliminal way. But due to the lack of being able to name the other violations, they do not say "Why are you violating all four principles of good slide design?", they just ask "Why are you using Comic Sans?".

With a little bit of desire of being more professional and serious, Simon Peyton-Jones probably just needs to read this book and he would create really convincing presentations.

The type Comic Sans has been discussed in other answer at length. The type falls into the Script category (out of the six Oldstyle, Modern, Slab serif, Sans serif, Script and Decorative). She defines scripts as

The script category includes all those typefaces that appear to have been handlettered with a calligraphy pen or brush, or sometimes with a pencil or technical pen.

For scripts, Robin Williams also says:

Scripts are like cheesecake - they should be used sparingly so nobody gets sick.

And it's really overused - not only in Simon Peyton-Jones' presentation.

  • I do not understand how Comic Sans falls into Williams's notion of script. Can you summarise Williams's definition in your answer?
    – dumbledad
    Commented Sep 10, 2014 at 5:08
  • 2
    Included in the answer. Commented Sep 10, 2014 at 6:44
  • +1 for the book, defiantly a must read book for designers and non-designers.
    – Mateo
    Commented Sep 14, 2014 at 1:47

There are a number of good answers already for why Comic Sans might be inappropriate, but all of them rely to varying degrees on some implied knowledge of culture, suggesting the appropriateness (or lack thereof) as defined by the existence of other articles... which I'm guessing doesn't quite answer your original question. It looks like you're looking for a logical reasoning for why people don't like Comic Sans, one that separates itself from the sociocultural environment, and just like the Microsoft Paperclip, I think I can help you with that:

There is a concept in psychology known as "the uncanny valley". Sometimes in design we try and add human elements to design, maybe we want a robot to look humanoid for example so we design it to be human-shaped and we give it a face. Most of the time we're perfectly fine with this because our brain can easily tell the difference between what is human and what is not.

The uncanny valley is a coin termed to explain things that reach a point that are so human in their qualities, but still not quite human, at a point where it confuses our brains and we find it "creepy". Psychologists have theorised that sometimes we find things "creepy" as opposed to eliciting genuine fear, and they believe this is when our brain is struggling to reconcile two dichotomous ideas, like when you stand near a ledge and you get a creepy sensation because part of your brain is analysing the danger of falling but another part of your brain knows you're capable of standing on solid ground... Or how people get creeped out by the dark, your brain knows that when light was last available there wasn't anything fearful around and none of your senses have detected a threat nearby but the dark still presents the unknown and that conflicts with what your brain is trying to tell you. The uncanny valley is a point where we see a thing that has many human traits but is just slightly off, in a way that causes a conflict in our brains rudimentary assessment of whether or not something is in fact human.

People who study such phenomena have suggested that the uncanny valley is the reason we so abhor Comic Sans. The font is quite human in design, it's meant to look like handwritten speech bubbles from old comic books and it's installed imperfections make it appear almost human... but not quite, placing it somewhere in the uncanny valley.

So, here is your logical answer for Mr Peyton-Jones as to why Comic Sans is inappropriate for his presentations: it's very nature offends people, it creeps people out because it lies in the uncanny valley, and is therefore detrimental to the efficient communication of his ideas.

  • Interesting theory! Not sure if the uncanny valley pertains to anything other than human forms, but it's a fun theory.
    – DA01
    Commented Jan 10, 2015 at 20:58
  • Interesting, but the uncanny valley is about things not quite looking like what they are trying to look like. (As an aside, I don't like the term as the other side of the valley is an act of faith. I'd prefer to call it the uncanny cliff.)
    – dumbledad
    Commented Jan 12, 2015 at 13:20
  • @dumbledad that's a very simplistic description but in essence yes, the uncanny valley is about things not quite being natural... like comic sans, it's imperfect lettering style is designed to make it appear handwritten (natural, human), but features like every character having a repeated form or the letter spacing/kerning etc. make it not quite natural.
    – JamiePatt
    Commented Jan 12, 2015 at 20:44

Nothing is wrong with Comic Sans

If someone has the opinion that Comic Sans fits her/his personality, that's fine.

My advice:

Use Comic Sans for comics or comic-like content

It's so easy, just read the fonts name.

Use other (legible) fonts for everything else

Or people will tell you to do so.

That way, everyone should be able to focus on the content of the slides, documents, etc.
That would be great, I think! :-)

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.