×

constantly tracks your activity. The app also seems to have an odd hostility to playing actual albums. This all works to create a general feeling that Spotify’s designers are trying to push you into using the service in a particular way.

It’s understandable, then, that some people are annoyed with the way music videos have been added to the platform. For the most part, they would start to play by default, in the background, whenever an artist had uploaded a video for the song. Some music videos have very different audio from the original tracks, particularly if they include sketches or sound effects, which can prove distracting if you prefer the album version of the song. And even if you enjoy music videos (which I do), the decision to have videos play by default—using up bandwidth and battery power—upset a lot of people.

There are a few other quirks. On Spotify’s desktop app, the videos are barely visible; they stay contained in the tiny album art panel until you manage to find the hidden, extremely small Now playing button that enlarges them. Also, the selection of videos that are on the platform, and the ones that are mysteriously absent, seems totally random. Because of this, I check YouTube first when I really want to watch a music video.

The most annoying thing, though, had been a lack of any obvious way to disable all videos. That changed recently—there’s now a toggle in the settings to disable music videos in Spotify entirely, alongside controls that disable the Canvas feature (animated album art) and video podcasts.

On mobile you can do this by tapping your user profile icon in the top-left to bring up the side panel. Then tap Settings and privacy, followed by Content and display.

Image may contain Page Text Electronics Mobile Phone and Phone

Photograph: Justin Pot

In the Videos and Canvas section you will see three toggles: one for music videos, one for Canvas, and one for all other videos. This last toggle disables video podcasts, meaning you’ll get the audio-only version of podcasts instead. Turn all these off, and Spotify will use a lot less bandwidth.

On the desktop app, it’s a little different. Click your user profile icon in the top-right corner, then click Settings. Scroll down to the Videos and Canvas section to find the options to disable music videos and Canvas.

I tested this and it worked. The music video icon in playlists and albums disappeared, as did the collection of music videos on Artist pages. The only remnant of the disabled feature is a Switch to video button in the Now Playing sidebar, which appears below the album art. Click it and you’ll be told the video can’t play unless you turn videos back on in the settings. Odd, for sure, but for the most part turning this off means you don’t have to think about music videos in Spotify anymore.

I sincerely wish that Spotify would roll out music videos with more care. Sometimes I really do want to see a video—just not every time I play a track. Playlists of music videos might be welcome if they ran separately from the audio-only playlists. I just don’t want to get a music video when I’m looking for the album version of a song, and I don’t think I’m alone in that. I can only hope that Spotify’s future interface design choices will keep things more clearly separated.

#Disable #Music #Videos #Spotifyspotify,how-to,tips,software,streaming,ux/ui"> How to Disable Music Videos in SpotifySpotify, it’s fair to say, has made some weird user-experience choices.There are a number of panels in the app, and the layout is confusing. The service constantly tracks your activity. The app also seems to have an odd hostility to playing actual albums. This all works to create a general feeling that Spotify’s designers are trying to push you into using the service in a particular way.It’s understandable, then, that some people are annoyed with the way music videos have been added to the platform. For the most part, they would start to play by default, in the background, whenever an artist had uploaded a video for the song. Some music videos have very different audio from the original tracks, particularly if they include sketches or sound effects, which can prove distracting if you prefer the album version of the song. And even if you enjoy music videos (which I do), the decision to have videos play by default—using up bandwidth and battery power—upset a lot of people.There are a few other quirks. On Spotify’s desktop app, the videos are barely visible; they stay contained in the tiny album art panel until you manage to find the hidden, extremely small Now playing button that enlarges them. Also, the selection of videos that are on the platform, and the ones that are mysteriously absent, seems totally random. Because of this, I check YouTube first when I really want to watch a music video.The most annoying thing, though, had been a lack of any obvious way to disable all videos. That changed recently—there’s now a toggle in the settings to disable music videos in Spotify entirely, alongside controls that disable the Canvas feature (animated album art) and video podcasts.On mobile you can do this by tapping your user profile icon in the top-left to bring up the side panel. Then tap Settings and privacy, followed by Content and display.Photograph: Justin PotIn the Videos and Canvas section you will see three toggles: one for music videos, one for Canvas, and one for all other videos. This last toggle disables video podcasts, meaning you’ll get the audio-only version of podcasts instead. Turn all these off, and Spotify will use a lot less bandwidth.On the desktop app, it’s a little different. Click your user profile icon in the top-right corner, then click Settings. Scroll down to the Videos and Canvas section to find the options to disable music videos and Canvas.I tested this and it worked. The music video icon in playlists and albums disappeared, as did the collection of music videos on Artist pages. The only remnant of the disabled feature is a Switch to video button in the Now Playing sidebar, which appears below the album art. Click it and you’ll be told the video can’t play unless you turn videos back on in the settings. Odd, for sure, but for the most part turning this off means you don’t have to think about music videos in Spotify anymore.I sincerely wish that Spotify would roll out music videos with more care. Sometimes I really do want to see a video—just not every time I play a track. Playlists of music videos might be welcome if they ran separately from the audio-only playlists. I just don’t want to get a music video when I’m looking for the album version of a song, and I don’t think I’m alone in that. I can only hope that Spotify’s future interface design choices will keep things more clearly separated.#Disable #Music #Videos #Spotifyspotify,how-to,tips,software,streaming,ux/ui
Tech-news

constantly tracks your activity. The app also seems to have an odd hostility to playing actual albums. This all works to create a general feeling that Spotify’s designers are trying to push you into using the service in a particular way.

It’s understandable, then, that some people are annoyed with the way music videos have been added to the platform. For the most part, they would start to play by default, in the background, whenever an artist had uploaded a video for the song. Some music videos have very different audio from the original tracks, particularly if they include sketches or sound effects, which can prove distracting if you prefer the album version of the song. And even if you enjoy music videos (which I do), the decision to have videos play by default—using up bandwidth and battery power—upset a lot of people.

There are a few other quirks. On Spotify’s desktop app, the videos are barely visible; they stay contained in the tiny album art panel until you manage to find the hidden, extremely small Now playing button that enlarges them. Also, the selection of videos that are on the platform, and the ones that are mysteriously absent, seems totally random. Because of this, I check YouTube first when I really want to watch a music video.

The most annoying thing, though, had been a lack of any obvious way to disable all videos. That changed recently—there’s now a toggle in the settings to disable music videos in Spotify entirely, alongside controls that disable the Canvas feature (animated album art) and video podcasts.

On mobile you can do this by tapping your user profile icon in the top-left to bring up the side panel. Then tap Settings and privacy, followed by Content and display.

Image may contain Page Text Electronics Mobile Phone and Phone

Photograph: Justin Pot

In the Videos and Canvas section you will see three toggles: one for music videos, one for Canvas, and one for all other videos. This last toggle disables video podcasts, meaning you’ll get the audio-only version of podcasts instead. Turn all these off, and Spotify will use a lot less bandwidth.

On the desktop app, it’s a little different. Click your user profile icon in the top-right corner, then click Settings. Scroll down to the Videos and Canvas section to find the options to disable music videos and Canvas.

I tested this and it worked. The music video icon in playlists and albums disappeared, as did the collection of music videos on Artist pages. The only remnant of the disabled feature is a Switch to video button in the Now Playing sidebar, which appears below the album art. Click it and you’ll be told the video can’t play unless you turn videos back on in the settings. Odd, for sure, but for the most part turning this off means you don’t have to think about music videos in Spotify anymore.

I sincerely wish that Spotify would roll out music videos with more care. Sometimes I really do want to see a video—just not every time I play a track. Playlists of music videos might be welcome if they ran separately from the audio-only playlists. I just don’t want to get a music video when I’m looking for the album version of a song, and I don’t think I’m alone in that. I can only hope that Spotify’s future interface design choices will keep things more clearly separated.

#Disable #Music #Videos #Spotifyspotify,how-to,tips,software,streaming,ux/ui">How to Disable Music Videos in Spotify

Spotify, it’s fair to say, has made some weird user-experience choices.

There are a number of panels in the app, and the layout is confusing. The service constantly tracks your activity. The app also seems to have an odd hostility to playing actual albums. This all works to create a general feeling that Spotify’s designers are trying to push you into using the service in a particular way.

It’s understandable, then, that some people are annoyed with the way music videos have been added to the platform. For the most part, they would start to play by default, in the background, whenever an artist had uploaded a video for the song. Some music videos have very different audio from the original tracks, particularly if they include sketches or sound effects, which can prove distracting if you prefer the album version of the song. And even if you enjoy music videos (which I do), the decision to have videos play by default—using up bandwidth and battery power—upset a lot of people.

There are a few other quirks. On Spotify’s desktop app, the videos are barely visible; they stay contained in the tiny album art panel until you manage to find the hidden, extremely small Now playing button that enlarges them. Also, the selection of videos that are on the platform, and the ones that are mysteriously absent, seems totally random. Because of this, I check YouTube first when I really want to watch a music video.

The most annoying thing, though, had been a lack of any obvious way to disable all videos. That changed recently—there’s now a toggle in the settings to disable music videos in Spotify entirely, alongside controls that disable the Canvas feature (animated album art) and video podcasts.

On mobile you can do this by tapping your user profile icon in the top-left to bring up the side panel. Then tap Settings and privacy, followed by Content and display.

Image may contain Page Text Electronics Mobile Phone and Phone

Photograph: Justin Pot

In the Videos and Canvas section you will see three toggles: one for music videos, one for Canvas, and one for all other videos. This last toggle disables video podcasts, meaning you’ll get the audio-only version of podcasts instead. Turn all these off, and Spotify will use a lot less bandwidth.

On the desktop app, it’s a little different. Click your user profile icon in the top-right corner, then click Settings. Scroll down to the Videos and Canvas section to find the options to disable music videos and Canvas.

I tested this and it worked. The music video icon in playlists and albums disappeared, as did the collection of music videos on Artist pages. The only remnant of the disabled feature is a Switch to video button in the Now Playing sidebar, which appears below the album art. Click it and you’ll be told the video can’t play unless you turn videos back on in the settings. Odd, for sure, but for the most part turning this off means you don’t have to think about music videos in Spotify anymore.

I sincerely wish that Spotify would roll out music videos with more care. Sometimes I really do want to see a video—just not every time I play a track. Playlists of music videos might be welcome if they ran separately from the audio-only playlists. I just don’t want to get a music video when I’m looking for the album version of a song, and I don’t think I’m alone in that. I can only hope that Spotify’s future interface design choices will keep things more clearly separated.

#Disable #Music #Videos #Spotifyspotify,how-to,tips,software,streaming,ux/ui

Spotify, it’s fair to say, has made some weird user-experience choices.There are a number of…

artificial intelligence intensifies, the collective quest to weed out—and reject—telltale signs of its use continues.

One of the first casualties, to my dismay, was em dashes—which are a great, and very human form of punctuation, by the way! There’s also the “rule of threes,” which is meant to scan as rhythmic, but often comes across predictable, hackish, and stale. And, of course, there are the clunky grammatical constructions of the “not X, but Y” variety.

Now certain fonts and typefaces—specifically serifs—seem to be defining (and giving away) AI, both in actual software, and in vibe-coded design boilerplates. Some are calling it “tasteslop,” the results of the effort to make generative AI designs seem superficially sophisticated or distinguished.

The shift away from slicker, more conspicuously computerized typefaces is something the San Francisco Bay Area writer, designer, and type practitioner Keya Vadgama has termed “the serif renaissance.” In a recent newsletter, published on her Substack, Vadgama suggests the move is a bid for companies to project more “personality and warmth.”

“It’s not that difficult to discern why AI-native companies in particular are being drawn to serif fonts: AI is inherently cold and without opinion,” she writes. “[Using serifs] signals ‘We’re AI! But real humans use (and made) our product! We swear!’”

“Serifs have an origin in calligraphy,” Vadgama tells WIRED. “It connotes a very human, fluid way of making letterforms.” Vadgama has noticed that Anthropic’s Claude was defaulting to serifs. Other AI companies—Runway, Perplexity, Manus—had also adopted similar typefaces in their UX and branding.

Reached for comment, Perplexity chief communications officer Jesse Dwyer tells WIRED: “Why wouldn’t we have human design? Perplexity is for people.”

Vadgama believes the use of serifs is as much about aesthetics as building confidence between users and brands. Certain font choices signal, even at some preconscious psychological level, trust. Sans serifs (your Arials, Calibiris, Helviticas) are too clean, too computer-y. Good old Times New Roman, and similar typographic designs, can feel a bit more dignified. Recently, Vadgama was doing some branding work with a (since-shuttered) AI startup, which favored the serif text. “A big part of it,” she says, “is, ‘How do we position ourselves in a way that people are not afraid of us?’”

Serifs can help build that conviction, or at least the illusion of it. Times New Roman itself was commissioned in the 1930s by Britain’s Times newspaper. The typeface carries a certain authoritative heft. Books and newspapers are printed using it. It was all but standardized in the decades before screen reading. Perhaps most famously, the Encyclopedia Brittanica—arguably the authoritative compendium of human knowledge, at least pre-World Wide Web—was set in Times.

“In the broad public, a serif carries connotations of scholarship,” says Ali S. Qadeer, chair of graphic design at the Ontario College of Art and Design in Toronto. “Claude is interesting. It’s using this slightly brown background to mirror a book page. It’s sort of emulating the feeling of reading print. And print has deeper associations with trust.”

As reported by The New York Times, even the US State Department has returned to using Times New Roman after Secretary of State Marco Rubio decried Calibri as “informal,” pegging the department’s adoption of the sans serif typeface on some wider, Biden-era DEI initiative.

Both Qadeer and Vadgama see the trend toward serifs as a rejoinder to AI’s perceived (and, indeed, literal) lack of soul, and the wider public suspicion of the technology. They’re not the only ones. Alongside the “tasteslop” discourse, people online have criticized the serification of AI aesthetics as “generic” and “very ugly.”

#Serif #Fontsartificial intelligence,design,ux/ui,art,typography,fonts,chatbots,claude,chatgpt"> AI Has Come for Serif FontsAs public backlash to the seeming omnipresence of artificial intelligence intensifies, the collective quest to weed out—and reject—telltale signs of its use continues.One of the first casualties, to my dismay, was em dashes—which are a great, and very human form of punctuation, by the way! There’s also the “rule of threes,” which is meant to scan as rhythmic, but often comes across predictable, hackish, and stale. And, of course, there are the clunky grammatical constructions of the “not X, but Y” variety.Now certain fonts and typefaces—specifically serifs—seem to be defining (and giving away) AI, both in actual software, and in vibe-coded design boilerplates. Some are calling it “tasteslop,” the results of the effort to make generative AI designs seem superficially sophisticated or distinguished.The shift away from slicker, more conspicuously computerized typefaces is something the San Francisco Bay Area writer, designer, and type practitioner Keya Vadgama has termed “the serif renaissance.” In a recent newsletter, published on her Substack, Vadgama suggests the move is a bid for companies to project more “personality and warmth.”“It’s not that difficult to discern why AI-native companies in particular are being drawn to serif fonts: AI is inherently cold and without opinion,” she writes. “[Using serifs] signals ‘We’re AI! But real humans use (and made) our product! We swear!’”“Serifs have an origin in calligraphy,” Vadgama tells WIRED. “It connotes a very human, fluid way of making letterforms.” Vadgama has noticed that Anthropic’s Claude was defaulting to serifs. Other AI companies—Runway, Perplexity, Manus—had also adopted similar typefaces in their UX and branding.Reached for comment, Perplexity chief communications officer Jesse Dwyer tells WIRED: “Why wouldn’t we have human design? Perplexity is for people.”Vadgama believes the use of serifs is as much about aesthetics as building confidence between users and brands. Certain font choices signal, even at some preconscious psychological level, trust. Sans serifs (your Arials, Calibiris, Helviticas) are too clean, too computer-y. Good old Times New Roman, and similar typographic designs, can feel a bit more dignified. Recently, Vadgama was doing some branding work with a (since-shuttered) AI startup, which favored the serif text. “A big part of it,” she says, “is, ‘How do we position ourselves in a way that people are not afraid of us?’”Serifs can help build that conviction, or at least the illusion of it. Times New Roman itself was commissioned in the 1930s by Britain’s Times newspaper. The typeface carries a certain authoritative heft. Books and newspapers are printed using it. It was all but standardized in the decades before screen reading. Perhaps most famously, the Encyclopedia Brittanica—arguably the authoritative compendium of human knowledge, at least pre-World Wide Web—was set in Times.“In the broad public, a serif carries connotations of scholarship,” says Ali S. Qadeer, chair of graphic design at the Ontario College of Art and Design in Toronto. “Claude is interesting. It’s using this slightly brown background to mirror a book page. It’s sort of emulating the feeling of reading print. And print has deeper associations with trust.”As reported by The New York Times, even the US State Department has returned to using Times New Roman after Secretary of State Marco Rubio decried Calibri as “informal,” pegging the department’s adoption of the sans serif typeface on some wider, Biden-era DEI initiative.Both Qadeer and Vadgama see the trend toward serifs as a rejoinder to AI’s perceived (and, indeed, literal) lack of soul, and the wider public suspicion of the technology. They’re not the only ones. Alongside the “tasteslop” discourse, people online have criticized the serification of AI aesthetics as “generic” and “very ugly.”#Serif #Fontsartificial intelligence,design,ux/ui,art,typography,fonts,chatbots,claude,chatgpt
Tech-news

artificial intelligence intensifies, the collective quest to weed out—and reject—telltale signs of its use continues.

One of the first casualties, to my dismay, was em dashes—which are a great, and very human form of punctuation, by the way! There’s also the “rule of threes,” which is meant to scan as rhythmic, but often comes across predictable, hackish, and stale. And, of course, there are the clunky grammatical constructions of the “not X, but Y” variety.

Now certain fonts and typefaces—specifically serifs—seem to be defining (and giving away) AI, both in actual software, and in vibe-coded design boilerplates. Some are calling it “tasteslop,” the results of the effort to make generative AI designs seem superficially sophisticated or distinguished.

The shift away from slicker, more conspicuously computerized typefaces is something the San Francisco Bay Area writer, designer, and type practitioner Keya Vadgama has termed “the serif renaissance.” In a recent newsletter, published on her Substack, Vadgama suggests the move is a bid for companies to project more “personality and warmth.”

“It’s not that difficult to discern why AI-native companies in particular are being drawn to serif fonts: AI is inherently cold and without opinion,” she writes. “[Using serifs] signals ‘We’re AI! But real humans use (and made) our product! We swear!’”

“Serifs have an origin in calligraphy,” Vadgama tells WIRED. “It connotes a very human, fluid way of making letterforms.” Vadgama has noticed that Anthropic’s Claude was defaulting to serifs. Other AI companies—Runway, Perplexity, Manus—had also adopted similar typefaces in their UX and branding.

Reached for comment, Perplexity chief communications officer Jesse Dwyer tells WIRED: “Why wouldn’t we have human design? Perplexity is for people.”

Vadgama believes the use of serifs is as much about aesthetics as building confidence between users and brands. Certain font choices signal, even at some preconscious psychological level, trust. Sans serifs (your Arials, Calibiris, Helviticas) are too clean, too computer-y. Good old Times New Roman, and similar typographic designs, can feel a bit more dignified. Recently, Vadgama was doing some branding work with a (since-shuttered) AI startup, which favored the serif text. “A big part of it,” she says, “is, ‘How do we position ourselves in a way that people are not afraid of us?’”

Serifs can help build that conviction, or at least the illusion of it. Times New Roman itself was commissioned in the 1930s by Britain’s Times newspaper. The typeface carries a certain authoritative heft. Books and newspapers are printed using it. It was all but standardized in the decades before screen reading. Perhaps most famously, the Encyclopedia Brittanica—arguably the authoritative compendium of human knowledge, at least pre-World Wide Web—was set in Times.

“In the broad public, a serif carries connotations of scholarship,” says Ali S. Qadeer, chair of graphic design at the Ontario College of Art and Design in Toronto. “Claude is interesting. It’s using this slightly brown background to mirror a book page. It’s sort of emulating the feeling of reading print. And print has deeper associations with trust.”

As reported by The New York Times, even the US State Department has returned to using Times New Roman after Secretary of State Marco Rubio decried Calibri as “informal,” pegging the department’s adoption of the sans serif typeface on some wider, Biden-era DEI initiative.

Both Qadeer and Vadgama see the trend toward serifs as a rejoinder to AI’s perceived (and, indeed, literal) lack of soul, and the wider public suspicion of the technology. They’re not the only ones. Alongside the “tasteslop” discourse, people online have criticized the serification of AI aesthetics as “generic” and “very ugly.”

#Serif #Fontsartificial intelligence,design,ux/ui,art,typography,fonts,chatbots,claude,chatgpt">AI Has Come for Serif Fonts

As public backlash to the seeming omnipresence of artificial intelligence intensifies, the collective quest to weed out—and reject—telltale signs of its use continues.

One of the first casualties, to my dismay, was em dashes—which are a great, and very human form of punctuation, by the way! There’s also the “rule of threes,” which is meant to scan as rhythmic, but often comes across predictable, hackish, and stale. And, of course, there are the clunky grammatical constructions of the “not X, but Y” variety.

Now certain fonts and typefaces—specifically serifs—seem to be defining (and giving away) AI, both in actual software, and in vibe-coded design boilerplates. Some are calling it “tasteslop,” the results of the effort to make generative AI designs seem superficially sophisticated or distinguished.

The shift away from slicker, more conspicuously computerized typefaces is something the San Francisco Bay Area writer, designer, and type practitioner Keya Vadgama has termed “the serif renaissance.” In a recent newsletter, published on her Substack, Vadgama suggests the move is a bid for companies to project more “personality and warmth.”

“It’s not that difficult to discern why AI-native companies in particular are being drawn to serif fonts: AI is inherently cold and without opinion,” she writes. “[Using serifs] signals ‘We’re AI! But real humans use (and made) our product! We swear!’”

“Serifs have an origin in calligraphy,” Vadgama tells WIRED. “It connotes a very human, fluid way of making letterforms.” Vadgama has noticed that Anthropic’s Claude was defaulting to serifs. Other AI companies—Runway, Perplexity, Manus—had also adopted similar typefaces in their UX and branding.

Reached for comment, Perplexity chief communications officer Jesse Dwyer tells WIRED: “Why wouldn’t we have human design? Perplexity is for people.”

Vadgama believes the use of serifs is as much about aesthetics as building confidence between users and brands. Certain font choices signal, even at some preconscious psychological level, trust. Sans serifs (your Arials, Calibiris, Helviticas) are too clean, too computer-y. Good old Times New Roman, and similar typographic designs, can feel a bit more dignified. Recently, Vadgama was doing some branding work with a (since-shuttered) AI startup, which favored the serif text. “A big part of it,” she says, “is, ‘How do we position ourselves in a way that people are not afraid of us?’”

Serifs can help build that conviction, or at least the illusion of it. Times New Roman itself was commissioned in the 1930s by Britain’s Times newspaper. The typeface carries a certain authoritative heft. Books and newspapers are printed using it. It was all but standardized in the decades before screen reading. Perhaps most famously, the Encyclopedia Brittanica—arguably the authoritative compendium of human knowledge, at least pre-World Wide Web—was set in Times.

“In the broad public, a serif carries connotations of scholarship,” says Ali S. Qadeer, chair of graphic design at the Ontario College of Art and Design in Toronto. “Claude is interesting. It’s using this slightly brown background to mirror a book page. It’s sort of emulating the feeling of reading print. And print has deeper associations with trust.”

As reported by The New York Times, even the US State Department has returned to using Times New Roman after Secretary of State Marco Rubio decried Calibri as “informal,” pegging the department’s adoption of the sans serif typeface on some wider, Biden-era DEI initiative.

Both Qadeer and Vadgama see the trend toward serifs as a rejoinder to AI’s perceived (and, indeed, literal) lack of soul, and the wider public suspicion of the technology. They’re not the only ones. Alongside the “tasteslop” discourse, people online have criticized the serification of AI aesthetics as “generic” and “very ugly.”

#Serif #Fontsartificial intelligence,design,ux/ui,art,typography,fonts,chatbots,claude,chatgpt

As public backlash to the seeming omnipresence of artificial intelligence intensifies, the collective quest to…