Talk:Segoe

Character showings?

It seems strange that the HTML specification of the font and showing of a seemingly random subset of characters in these fonts is tolerated. This HTML relies on the font being installed. If you happen to have the font you either know what it looks like (because its used in UI) or you don't care, or you can view the font. If you don't have the font then you'll see Arial. strikes me as worthless clutter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.135.70 (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's pretty ridiculous. If they want to show a preview of the font, someone with a font license can create a graphic version of the preview and just post the graphic. There is NO sense in using it as font-style in the HTML. Omnichad (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion to cover other Segoe fonts

Re the March edits to this page. Does the title Segoe UI make sense any more given the addition of information on non UI fonts that use the Segoe trademark? (24.19.11.107 (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

"is a series of typefaces designed by Steve Matteson" is incorrect, Segoe Script and Print were developed my Monotype Imaging after Steve left. Segoe Chess and Segoe UI Symbol were developed by Steve while at Ascender. (24.19.11.107 (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Availability

This section contains a link to a site that has posted a copy of the font in violation of the Windows/Office EULA. According to Wikipedia policy such links shouldn't be posted. "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted."

I've removed the link, as it was indeed a violation of WP:C. RunOrDie 14:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

capital 'I' comparison with Segoe

I removed the part about the serifs on Segoe's capital 'I' because there aren't any in the comparison linked to at the bottom of the article. That's all the more mysterious as the same person edited this sentence and added the link to the comparison. To my unaided eye, the visual comparison of all the letters yields no noticable differences. If someone thinks it's POV to have only Linotype's claim and no counterclaim, please back up the counterclaim with a better example than non-existent serifs. Joriki 15:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was stupid by me. I added the comparison link, but didn't actually check the differences mentioned - the sentence about the differences was already there, so I left it there.

Part of the "confusion" might be that Linotype apparently claims Segoe looks like Frutiger _Next_ , not Frutiger. So, does anyone have the Frutiger Next available for comparison with Segoe, or the exact wording of what Linotype claims? 82.83.206.51 15:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP MCE

Are you sure about this? I installed XP MCE 2005, and there was no Segoe UI. - Sikon 09:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It comes in 2 fonts "Segoe Media Center" and "Segoe Media Center Semibold" look for those Mike Beckham 08:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sample

It doesn't show... - Sikon 07:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Segoe Print and Segoe Script

Microsoft created two more fonts under the Segoe name which will be included in Windows Vista (read about them here.) I want to include these fonts in the article, but I don't know how to create the samples. Can anyone provide some sort of tutorial? ModusOperandi 19:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use?

So can this font be used in commercial publications or not? The article only states is can be legally downloaded.

Segoe UI's license states in full:

You may use this font as permitted by the EULA for the product in which this font is included to display and print content. You may only (i) embed this font in content as permitted by the embedding restrictions included in this font; and (ii) temporarily download this font to a printer or other output device to help print content.

So, yes, there's no particular reason why you couldn't use the font in a publication, provided you have a valid license to use it in the first place; in particular, as long as the copy you have permits embedding, there's no reason why you couldn't provide a document to a printer with Segoe UI embedded in it.

The question does arise of exactly why you'd want to do so, however. Segoe UI has been optimised for screen display, not print, and (like Arial before it) is likely to be stigmatised as a font perceived as heavily plagiaristic. Why not just use the authentic Frutiger, or Myriad if you prefer Frutiger with curvier letterforms? — Haeleth Talk 14:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2019

The article also states:

Under United States copyright law, the abstract letter shapes of functional text fonts cannot be copyrighted; only the computer programming code in a font is given copyright protection. This makes the production and distribution of clone fonts possible. Is it possible to cite a source here for verification? Mirth379 (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Pictures

Someone scribbled on the pictures. I don't know how to fix them so could someone help me out?

NPOV

The section doesn't mention the fact that Segoe UI is in fact more similar to Segoe than Frutiger. I have no time for this right now, so I'll let somebody else take care of it. — Alex^(T|C|E) 10:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a problem with Segoe UI being similar to Segoe - the naming does suggest it is a derivative. I think the problem is in fact that the original Segoe (not Microsoft's Segoe UI) is similar to Frutiger? I'm also not convinced this section is NPOV, seems to state both sides of argument in a fairly well balanced manner. Halsteadk 13:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they specifically mentioned Segoe UI, not Segoe (they as in Linotype). I think the article needs to mention the fact that Segoe UI is more similar to Segoe than Frutiger. — Alex^(T|C|E) 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is titled Segoe UI, the most high-profile of the Segoe fonts. Any detailed analysis would need to look at the original Segoe fonts that Monotype made, the Segoe fonts Microsoft uses for branding (these were the basis of the patent challenge), and compare these against the original Frutiger airport design, the later digital versions from Linotype, the other humanist sans in the same style (authorized or not) such as FF Transit, Humanist 777, Myriad, Podium Sans etc., and of course Frutiger Next which post-dates the original Segoe but pre-dates the Microsoft work (in particular the italics) however, Frutiger Next post-dates Myriad so you need to look at the influences of Myriad on Frutiger Next (in particular the italics). It's really not surprising that no one has engaged in this level of analysis. 131.107.0.73 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would be inappropriate for the article as it would be considered "original research". I propose the NPOV template is removed from the section.Halsteadk 08:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuSE Linux

Somewhat surprised that it's taken this long for someone to note the SuSE distribution of a early version of Segoe. Analysis of the fonts included with SuSE Linux reveals that many fonts were purged from the product in recent releases including Segoe.

Mac OS X Font Installation

How you should install the fonts from Windows Vista, namely Segoe UI, Segoe Print and Segoe Script?

Yes. You can install these fonts in Macintosh OS X Leopard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.233.98.127 (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myriad and Podium Sans

Both the Myriad and Podium Sans Wikipedia pages make reference to the issue of these fonts being similar to Frutiger. The Myriad page also includes a quote from Adrian Frutiger himself. I wonder why was this section removed? A bias in favor of Apple and Adobe over Microsoft and Monotype? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.77 (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 7

Will windows 7 contain new versions of this font family? --Frakturfreund (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sego Name

I cannot find, through my limited research, that there is any connection between Segoe Road in Madison, Wisconsin and the name of this font. Group29 (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to an interview conducted by CNET with Steve Matteson published on April 11, 2012, "The new design was named after the street Segoe co-designer Tom Rickner lived on, in Madison, Wis." ^[1]

References

^ La, Lynn (11 April 2012). "The secret to designing a great smartphone font". CNET. Retrieved 17 May 2018.

Bi-level rendering

We need a link to the article that explains "Bi-level rendering" (mentioned in the Characteristics section). I was unable to decipher that section's meaning before first reading about hinting and bi-level rendering. I found an article on Hinting and added a link to that, but had to go elsewhere to understand bi-level rendering. It was only after learning what bi-level rendering was that I was able to search and find a relevant topic here under Font rasterization. The term "Bi-level rendering" is not specifically mentioned in that article, but the topic is covered. Because the article has no section specific to the topic, and the term "bi-level rendering" is not used in the article, a link to the article in its current form would be too ambiguous to be useful. It would be good to make that article's discussion of bi-level rendering into its own section so that it can be linked to from here. I lack the editorial skills and experience to do it myself. Gilly3 (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrich Stiehl "Quote"

The Ulrich Stiehl quote goes nowhere. The "quote" itself is idiotic, and the claim the he, Ulrich Stiehl, is against plagiarism is completely meaningless. As anyone involved with font design, every "utilitarian" font is based on some existing design. There is a very limited space of maneuver in font design. Artistic designs of course have more leeway.

The article itself is very poor, more concerned with idiotic accusations of plagiarism than to describe the font and its importance for being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.137.126 (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is with the itallic a?

Is there knowledge about why the standard a and the itallic a look totally different? Will MS fix it at some point? http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2005/11/28/497441.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:F322:7500:7D24:ABEA:E998:E2F0 (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite common in many fonts, especially in serif and humanist sans-serif fonts. — Edokter (talk) — 17:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Effective readability of Segoe UI fonts for eyeglass wearers

I note that, unfortunately, no one mentions the fact that the clear-type characters (including Segoe UI), although pleasant at a first glance, strains significantly the user's eyes, in particular of eyeglass wearers because of the artifact adopted to simulate the curves/inclined lines. The eye of the operator, in fact, unconsciously and constantly tries to focalize something that, by its nature, is not defined (anti-aliasing blurs the pixels on lines that are not vertical or horizontal). For the category of eyeglass wearers working in front of a monitor all day long, a not clear-type character would result to be much more restful but the Metro interface of Windows 8/8.1 does not to meet their need for sure. In the previous versions of Windows, it was possible to change both the characters of the shell's graphic elements and to disable the anti-aliasing filter but now it is impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.18.145.57 (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Segoe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Segoe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Segoe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New varient of Segoe UI known as Segoe UI Variable

this article might need to be updated due to the new upcoming varient (for windows 10 sun valley) --Chazpelo (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

From the article: In its submission to the EU, Microsoft claimed that Linotype had failed to prove that it had been selling Frutiger and Frutiger Next prior to 2004.

When I read this it gave the impression that according to Microsoft Linotype had not been selling Frutiger prior to 2004, that this was an unsubstantiated claim. But this is very far from the truth. Frutiger was developed on commission in 1970, and regularly licensed since, a fact that Microsoft surely knew. In the court case, invoices with article numbers and a CD-ROM with the same article number on it containing Frutiger were submitted as evidence. Even though Microsoft knew that this part of the claim of Heidelberger Druckmaschinen (owner of Linotype from 1997 to 2007) was true, they tried to get out of it by claiming that the fact that the CD-ROM had the same article number as the invoices didn't mean they were for the same thing. Obviously the judge didn't go along with that. According to the reference this article cites, Microsoft was arguing in bad faith trying to get the evidence rejected on a technicality even though they must have known the claim that the evidence was submitted to support was true. But I get no sense of that fact from this article's text.

The article then proceeds to say that EU rejected these claims (plural?) and leaves it at that. But the EU went much further than that. The judge points out a couple of dozen points that according to the judge show that Segoe should be considered identical to Frutiger. In other words, if Segoe had not been based on Frutiger, one would not have expected the two typefaces to be the same in all these respects. Microsoft didn't contest the fact that the two typefaces should be considered identical, even though it could have at least tried to do just that if Segoe had indeed been an original creation.

And I think this puts some later claims in the article in a different light. Simon Daniels's statement no longer reads like ‘Segoe was an original design.’ but like ‘It wasn't us, Monotype did it.’ Which sounds a bit disingenuous, I mean Monotype is going to Monotype, what did you expect? And the PR person likely wants to remain anonymous because he knows full well that his statement is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] La, Lynn (11 April 2012). "The secret to designing a great smartphone font". CNET. Retrieved 17 May 2018.

[1]