Talk:Roboto

Fudgedicle
Perhaps should read Fudgsicle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.234.191 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. Can someone with access to visual editing software change it and reproduce a typo-less version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.76.157.60 (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It was correct before but someone made the typo when making an updated version. I've made a request at the Commons Graphic Lab. Opencooper (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This has now been fixed. Opencooper (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Guber reference
Just wondering how long Gruber (referenced) has been a "professional Graphic Designer"?

203.158.32.195 (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition to that, I don't think "Daring Fireball" is a appropriate source: it is clear the author is pro-Apple and Anti-Android, so including it is likely a violation of NPOV. The reliability of typographica.org is also unclear and both seem to be Self-published sources --SF007 (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The article on typographica.org is by Stephen Coles who has previously worked for FontShop and is also clearly an opinion piece. You have twice tagged this section, but the reception area is clearly always going to be based on opinion. You seem to take umbrage that anyone would criticize this subject and seem to seek to have any criticism expunged from the article. While Gruber does not appear to be a graphic artist, your statement that he is "Anti-Android" clearly needs sources other than your own opinion, which seems to be a violation of NPOV given your recent edit history. Given his profile and how widely quoted he was about this, it is just as valid to show his opinion as that of Joshua Topolsky's, isn't it? --203.206.236.114 (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing the information about Stephen Coles. I agree "Reception" sections are always going to be based on "opinions", but that was not the problem, the problem was that the article stated the font had been criticized by "professional graphic designers", implying either John Grubber and Stephen Coles are both "professional graphic designers" or some other "professional graphic designers" criticized the font. Either way, that was unsourced, and yes, I have twice tagged the section and I would tag it as many times as necessary, as Verifiability is one of the pillars of wikipedia. "You seem to take umbrage that anyone would criticize this subject" - What I personally dislike is when people dislike some product/service/company and do their best to push their ideas, using sources and opinions that are not considered "reliable sources". I perfectly admit that my statement saying Grubber is Anti-Android is somewhat speculative and should have been backed by some more info, but I after analyzing his blog, one will conclude he is openly Pro-Apple and there are also strong indications he favors iOS over Android, in his words "We criticize Android for being poorly designed because it’s poorly designed. We favor iOS because it’s better designed."
 * "which seems to be a violation of NPOV given your recent edit history." - You seem to imply that as I have edited several Android-related articles, somehow tagging an article to request citations or openly analyzing the bias of a blogger is a NPOV violation? Actually no, the NPOV policy applies to article content, it is my understanding it is perfecly OK to analyse and make a critical judgment of the sources and express that on a talk page, as long as is is respectful/etc.
 * "Given his profile and how widely quoted he was about this, it is just as valid to show his opinion as that of Joshua Topolsky's, isn't it?" Actually, no. Being widely quoted does not mean it is appropriate for an encyclopedia, and regarding is opinion being "as valid as Joshua's opinion", I think it is clear that not all opinions are considered "valid", and some are considered more valid than others. Joshua's opinion is published on a media and news website, considered a more or less reliable source. Grubber'ss opinion is published on his own blog, without any editorial oversight and without any commitment to "journalistic integrity" or similar standards. While I don't dispute Grubber might be considered a reliable source for some information (I am not very familiar with him nor his blog), being a reliable source for one thing does not necessarily make it a reliable source for another thing. --SF007 (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Android screenshot
Should we change the screenshot of android? As it is now you can't really see the type well, would it be better to crop it, or to change it, maybe a screenshot of Google Keep? (example)Joranbosscher (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Roboto sans version number and suggested download inconsistency
Text on the hilight box in the right corner suggests that: Latest release version is 2.001047;2015

At the bottom of the page there is suggested Download link to Material design Downloads. https://material.io/guidelines/resources/roboto-noto-fonts.html But the version there is only 2.000980; 2014

Typekit version seems to correspond with the Wiki: Latest release version is 2.001047;2015

fonts.google.com offers Version 2.137; 2017

So the question remains, wich version is the latest official Roboto sans and where it can be downloaded.

Meelismikker (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Similarity to Arial?
The font looks almost identical to Arial. Which is almost the same as Helvetica. Edit: Oh, Arial is also a copy of Helvetica, and the article does mention Roboto's similarity to Helvetica already. 2600:1700:8830:8DF0:ED24:804B:742D:BC8B (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * They are both neo-grotesques designed for screen useage, but Roboto doesn't remind me of Arial. I think Roboto has a lot of design idiosyncracies as Android screens can vary in size.
 * Arial is not a copy of Helvetica per se, it's a metrically-compatible adaptation of Sonora Sans as a substitute for Helvetica.
 * An actual copy of Helvetica would be Nimbus Sans or FreeSans. Inferno986return (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Relevance to Inter?
Inter could probably have it's own Wikipedia page given it's a very popular screen-optimised neogrotesque with striking similarity to Apple's proprietary San Francisco typeface. Why is a section on it here? Inferno986return (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)