The Problems with Papyrus

or What We Can Learn About Typographic History and Type Design from Papyrus

Chris Costello released the widely seen font Papyrus in 1982.

Here is a short list of the objective shortcomings with the typeface Papyrus.

A. Papyrus is overused. Costello stated as much in 2017.

  1. It comes with various Microsoft software programs and Apple’s operating systems. It is a system font and people often pick it because it is available and costs $0, not because it is the right tool for the job. (Plenty of system fonts at least have the virtue of being readable, and some of them are even beautiful.)
  2. Being overused is not enough to engender hatred and eye rolls. (Even being used inappropriately all the time is still not enough to engender font hatred from the design community. More on this later.) Many designers still love Futura and many still respect Helvetica. And despite being eye-rolling-ly, boringly ubiquitous and a rip off of the better-looking Helvetica, Arial is at least readable. Which brings us to the next point.

B. Papyrus has technical design flaws, which make it objectively unreadable.

(Cryptic, extreme, and unreadable typefaces do exist and can be quite beautiful in their own way, but Papyrus is not even an interesting attempt at that.)

  1. Great typefaces look good in all lowercase, in mixed case, and in all caps. However, Papyrus looks particularly poor in all caps (image above), nearly unreadable. For example, the middle E bar is too high, and longer than the top bar. Some of these design problems with individual letters compound other design issues by creating extra problems with spacing, making everything even more unreadable.
  2. All of these readability problems make it completely unusable for body copy and for extended reading sessions. In addition, because it has no bold or italic, or other weights, it is very limited from a design system perspective. Compare workhorse families (or superfamilies) or even solid open licensed fonts.
  3. Fonts that are not versatile and can only be recommended for “display” or heading or logo usage are not necessarily bad fonts, they are just easier to use inappropriately. However, Papyrus is a bad choice for display uses such as signage because no one can even read your large sign from far away, making it a poor tool for telling us about your business unless we are already standing right next to your ugly sign. (Sorry for picking on this specific sign in my city. Also we can glean that you didn’t have the money to hire a designer or thought you didn’t need one. This does not reflect well on your business nor your taste and sense of culture, awareness, and respect for other people’s eyeballs. I can guarantee that revenue lost because we cannot find your business due to your unreadable sign far exceeds what you would’ve spent on a competent designer, who could have selected one of hundreds of more readable fonts.)
  1. The lowercase is very difficult to read, because of its low x-height relative to the strangely tall ascenders. This compounds the signage illegibility problems because the tall ascenders necessitate a smaller font size for all of the letters to fit in the same vertical space.
  2. Put together, the uppercase and lowercase create an awkward Frankenstein’s monster, as the uppercase letters are too wide and are a mismatch for the lowercase. (Papyrus EF has the additional problem of uppercase and lowercase with mismatched baselines, a pointless and irrelevant innovation.)
  3. It has poor kerning. Simply write the word Papyrus in the font and see that the “P” is a mile west of “apyrus” (top of the above image, corrected kerning in the middle). Requiring that a font be properly kerned is a basic starting point for any design project whatsoever. Even the cryptic and brutalist example linked above is properly and consistently kerned!
  4. Papyrus has built-in special effects (jagged edges), which are gimmicky and cannot be turned off, which also reduce legibility. Even if one could turn off the special effects, all of the other design problems would still remain.

C. There are no appropriate uses for Papyrus because it is fundamentally broken conceptually.

  1. People have seen Papyrus used (inappropriately) to attempt to express sophistication, elegance, naturalness, ancientness, organicness, or primitiveness, but it is none of those things. It is not elegant because it is not readable and letters that are unreadable can only be considered brutalist or cryptic at best, like graffiti or tagging, which are meant to be cryptic. Yet Papyrus is not attempting to be cryptic, instead simply failing at readability. Papyrus is not natural nor organic because it is coined out of thin air (see next point) and not a natural evolution of any typefaces or script from any era of history. It is alien and exotic, yet only ever existed in the optical type and digital eras, so it is not really organic nor primitive. Even the rough edge marks are razor sharp and not soft and organic. Additionally, one cannot call it sophisticated because it completely disregards centuries of type design precedent, but not in a good way!
  2. It is supposedly what English letters would look like if they were 2000 years old. News flash! We have that information—73% of the English alphabet is just the Latin alphabet, which did exist in Ancient Rome 2000 years ago, and samples from the period survive. (Another popular typeface, Trajan Pro, was designed in the optical/digital era, copying the 1800-plus-year-old Roman capital letters from Trajan’s Column.) No need for hypotheticals. Yes, Adobe Trajan is totally overused, but it is readable and elegant and well-executed technically. Those Roman capitals arguably cannot go out of style because they have not gone out of style in 2000 years—it appears that they are grandfathered in.
  3. And if you want handwritten letters from the era, a type sample survives from the ashes of Vesuvius: Herculaneum papyrus fragments have been digitized as Herculanum, a typeface based on reality—actual handwriting from the period, not made-up handwriting from some science fiction parallel universe that never existed. We know how people wrote Latin letters on pieces of papyrus thousands of years ago!
  4. Centuries of handwriting took us from the capitals of ancient Rome through the middle ages and through countless generations of scribes, who eventually developed lowercase calligraphic forms from the Roman capitals. Papyrus seems to pretend to be handwritten yet has no basis in any handwritten calligraphy from any era, nor does it follow any italic or script hands from any of the ten centuries of the last millennium, nor any typefaces from any era in the last five hundred years of metal type, failing to be grounded effectively in either world.
  5. If it is supposed to look handwritten, it is not technologically advanced enough to have alternates that keep it from looking printed and rigid, again, a self-contradiction. Is it a typeface or a handwritten script?
  6. Basically, Papyrus is a conceptual dead-end, answering the call for a font with a self-contradictory design brief: how do we make an English alphabet that looks old-timey, while ignoring the fact that we know what all kinds of old timey alphabets looked like! When someone is thinking, “I would like to write some text that looks old timey, what font should I pick?” it is better to throw away the question and ask a better question: from what time and place would you like your type to look like it came? To many people, “old-timey” basically means over a century, perhaps two centuries old, but that is still not specific enough to select a typeface. Pick a century in time. You have more than a dozen to choose from.


By what objective criteria has Papyrus established itself as anything but a poor typeface without legitimate use cases? If lots of people happen to like it, it is only because it is familiar because it is ubiquitous, and not because of its merits. There are lots of better options that are more appropriate for any given situation.

“Legibility, in practice, amounts simply to what one is accustomed to. But this is not to say that because we have got used to something demonstrably less legible than something else would be if we could get used to it, we should make no effort to scrap the existing thing.”

An Essay on Typography, Eric Gill

And here, go buy one of Chris’s typefaces for which he makes actual money, since he makes very little from Papyrus, despite its preposterous popularity.


Earliest Sans-Serif Typefaces

This blog post describes two of the earliest documented English (Latin alphabet or Roman) sans-serif type designs. The first is somewhat obscure, but still more widely known: Caslon Egyptian or Two-Lines English. The second is even earlier and more obscure, which I am calling Soane Old Roman, based on a tiny sample sketch by John Soane which was discovered in the twenty-first century and discussed by James Mosley and the late Justin Howes.

Caslon Egyptian, 1816

or Two-Lines English Egyptian

Some resources about this typeface, the earliest commercially available sans-serif typeface.

  1. Wikipedia entry on Caslon Egyptian.
  2. Jonathan Martin’s article on Behance: Two Lines English Egyptian Digital Revival. This is where I got the high-resolution scan of the sample from the two-century-old type specimen book. His typeface is not publicly available for download or purchase, although if you contact him privately he may take your money.
  3. Fonts in Use has an article about...
  4. ... Font Bureau’s Caslons Egyptian revival, with its invented lowercase.
  5. Jonathan Morgan and Adrienne Vasquez made a revival which is available for purchase.

Soane Old Roman, 1779

James Mosley published a scan of a type sample from a sketch dated 1779 for a proposed “DESIGN FOR A BRITISH” museum by architect John Soane. From these thirteen letters (plus two, if you take C from G and P from R) we can create the better part of an alphabet.

So now we have an even older typeface from the dawn of sans-serif types. If we fill in the gaps of Old Roman with Caslon Egyptian, we have a complete sans-serif uppercase alphabet older than the US Constitution.

2021 Soane Old Roman revival by Jared Updike

I made an experimental typeface (all uppercase, very few glyphs) that I created from Jonathan Martin’s reference scan, which combines Caslon Egyptian (capitals in this file) and Soane Old Roman / New Roman (lowercase in this file.)

  • Download the OTF here. Available under the SIL OFL. If you make any changes or make something interesting from this, you must make the changes available under the same license, and call it something different. And please let me know about it!

For a comparison, including the lovely and quite popular Proxima Nova by Mark Simonson, see this table below:

(All of the black glyphs are available in the Soane Old Roman Bold OTF file.)


Just buy and use Simonson’s gorgeous and professional Proxima Nova family, or if you want it to be more historical (mostly, besides the capital letter G) get the Caslons Egyptian family from Font Bureau.


Video Games as an Art Form

Video games are one of the only forms of media that include all the forms of media I deeply love: programming or software development; interaction design and user experience; writing or literature; animation and computer graphics; music and sound design; fine art, illustration and graphic design. (Film or cinematography if you have the budget.) What an art form. Take that, Hollywood!

Like many who grew up since the Atari 2600 and Nintendo Entertainment System were available in the 1980’s, making my own video games was what motivated me to learn how to program in the first place.

In the modern world, with decades of software development experience under my belt, I feel like I still have it in me to make a game from scratch, perhaps something fun—but I would turn it into too much work and have a hard time keeping the scope narrow. I still know how to put a game together at a technical level and I think with my vastly improved engineering skills and improved tools like C# or JavaScript and Unity and widely available GPU hardware it would be easy at a technical level to make a high quality low-tech game, but artwork or assets and level design would be a big project.

The issue I have with that type of time investment (unless the kiddos were older or were somehow involved) is that the game market is a mess and the indie game world is saturated and overcrowded, just intensely competitive. Gamers and non-gamers have really high expectations. And the way to make money is to make a game free and then use dark patterns from behavioral psychology and trick people into paying to play a game that is made crummy on purpose, for monetization reasons. What a mess.

The sliver of hope is that there many ways to publish a game and ask an audience to pay for it. One is or Steam, where people pay you directly. The App Store allows this too, but is pretty overflowing with an infinitude of highly-funded games that you have to compete with for attention. There are also streaming platforms like Google Stadia, or Apple Arcade. If you cut a deal with Apple, you can get paid to develop a beautiful and fully true-to-itself game, yet give the full game away “for free” to subscribers so that people can enjoy the whole thing—without being forced to make it worse just to make money (monetization, pay-to-play game mechanics, fishing for whales). I’m pretty sure unless I had some unique new concept I could never catch the attention of Apple Arcade to develop it for them, but that would be quite an honor. Unlikely but it would be amazing.

I really admire when people put something together that is beautiful and inspiring. So there is a part of me that hopes to return to making video games someday.


Mickey Mouse Shorts

This is old news but my wife and I watched all of the new (2013–2019) Mickey Mouse Shorts (usually 3.5 minutes) on YouTube over the years and unsurprisingly, now that our toddler is old enough, he loves them too. It is about five or six hours of material. He watches all of it in about a week!

I found out that I share a birthday with one of the main characters. I also found out the Disney is working on a theme park ride based on that Rainbow Caverns episode called Mickey and Minnie’s Runaway Railway. Surprisingly this is the first Mickey-themed ride-through attraction!