The Default Font in Excel (And why I hate it)
I take myself — and my deliverables — very seriously, whether it’s crafting fine-tuned financial models or drafting emails to clients. This commitment to detail extends even to the typefaces I choose for my work. So, despite its modern inspiration, I chose to click “alt + h + f” and change away from the new default Excel typeface, Aptos, to something more respected: Times New Roman.
Yes, I am aware that Managing Directors at my firm have received ‘bad raps’ for seeming distant, or harsh, or overbearing, or demanding, or obsessive – but it’s only because we care about … Money? Image? Results? Who knows. I've consistently received feedback from lower and mid-level analysts describing my leadership style as 'nitpicky' — and I wear it as a badge of honor.
Nitpick (verb): To criticize for tiny faults that are usually of little importance.
Sorry, folks — I have an eye for what is precise and impactful. I also have a keen sense for a term I call ‘corporate design’ which I use to manage memos, briefs, presentations, and any external corporate communications. I helped design my firm’s Excel templates a few years back, which is why I feel more than qualified to call out Microsoft for their bold misstep last year.
Excel power users ought to be familiar with the Aptos font family by now – it dropped on the scene in 2023, succeeding the long-lived Calibri as the default typeface of MS Office. Though it might not be directly evident, Microsoft spent a tremendous amount of effort commissioning and selecting a typeface for the new era of corporate software.
The team ran a rigorous study that considered four other custom-designed font options. Aptos emerged as the frontrunner and was rolled out to the millions of users who often regard Outlook, PowerPoint, Excel, and Word as the worst parts of their week. The project culminated in a neatly organized memo titled 'A change of typeface,' which outlined the vetting process and consumer-centered trial period, as well as commentary from the font’s designer. While the memo aims to be clear and informative, it is filled with trivial language and lacks focus, much like the font itself.
In the memo, Aptos was touted as “bold, well-defined, directive” yet “constrained.” Indeed, it appears this font’s ethos is full of contradictions:
He [Steve Matteson] designed the font with a slight humanist touch. He wanted Aptos to have the universal appeal of the late NPR newscaster Carl Kasell and the astute tone of The Late Show host Stephen Colbert.
“There’s always that little voice inside of me saying, ‘You know, you gotta try to sneak in a little bit of humanity. You can’t just use rulers and straight edges and French curves (a template used to help draw uniformed curves) to make all these shapes mechanical.’ I did that by adding a little swing to the R and the double-stacked g,” he said.
Steve wanted the font to be more universal and less mechanical or institutional. Aptos had to induce trust and be engaging to read.
What the hell does any of that mean?
Furthermore, it was noted the typeface was somehow inspired by the “great outdoors” – as if the outdoors could somehow be reflected in a font that millions of us associate with over-edited emails. Yes, Steve Matteson, I too wish I were outdoors while tethered to the Office ecosystem for hours each day.
Regardless of the choice language in the announcement piece, the font itself reflects the contradictions in its design philosophy. In Outlook, words resemble a jumpy mess, and sentences roll like a rackety rollercoaster. In Excel, the default Aptos Narrow seems somewhat out of place in a financial model — it is neither conservative nor modern. Further, the font seems somewhat immature in a professional setting.
Matteson & Co. were right — the font is full of contradictions, and it definitely shows in real-world use.
For starters, individual letters vary greatly on the “professionalism“ scale. Microsoft claimed to have found the right balance between “professionalism” and “expression” but the font clearly has no established theme. For some letters, it is modern and sleek — for others, its retro design recalls the inconsistent and chaotic font styles of the 1970s, particularly in corporate advertising. For example, the 'g' feels out of place with its unusual form, and the double-stacked 'o' seems awkward and ill-suited for Excel models
While my critique has been harsh, the designers did get a few things right. The subtle ending of the 'l' clearly differentiates it from a common 'I,' a detail many typefaces overlook. Similarly, the 'p,' 'q,' 't,' and 'f' feel like nods to a time before Calibri, when fonts had more character and charm. But to have such retro-styled characters alongside the ultra-modern, the ultra-sleek “e” and “y” and “e” just seems so wrong. And don’t get me started on the unnecessary roundness of the “o”! It screams unconstrained maturity, an almost unsolicited, uncomfortable intent.
Microsoft truly tried to find the “best of both worlds” but ended up settling with a jumbled, disjointed font that seems out-of-place no matter where it’s seen.
Even though Times New Roman gets passed up as often as it gets written off, it carries an air of timeless authority, blending seamlessly into both the traditional and the modern. It is as reliable as your leathered hometown firefighter and as adaptable as a centerpiece in a modern art gallery. It can be found on Fiji water bottles, or Nike Instagram ads — with respect. Have you seen Aptos anywhere besides the Microsoft Office suite?
Thank you to The Worker’s Digest for publishing my thoughts — I hope this gets to Microsoft so they can get their shit together.