

Arial versus Helvetica - mingyeow
http://www.swiss-miss.com/2009/09/arial-versus-helvetica.html

======
Adrock
This inspired me to generate some automatic font comparisons using
Mathematica: <http://cronus.ws/~mta/fonts/>

Any feedback is appreciated.

~~~
sp332
How about Time New Roman vs. Georgia? It's always puzzled me that they look
much different on screen, but fairly similar when printed.

~~~
Adrock
That's a good, subtle one:
<http://cronus.ws/~mta/fonts/GeorgiaTimesNewRoman.html>

~~~
sp332
OK, so I guess the slight differences are exaggerated by the font hinting. But
the printer, being much higher resolution, can show the similar font shapes
more clearly. Cool.

------
spolsky
The easiest way to tell is that Helvetica is obsessive about straight
horizontal edges, while Arial tends to use angled edges rather
unsystematically.

~~~
dcurtis
Except, for some reason, the capital R in Helvetica, which is a very curvy
letter.

~~~
unalone
But the R only curves so that its leg meets the base at a logical angle.
Arial's straight leg looks straighter, but if you isolate it as a piece itself
then that straight part cuts off at a diagonal angle to maintain the flat
bottom.

~~~
dcurtis
Oh, wow, interesting; I hadn't thought about it that way.

(The R does still have a little serif though, which always bothers me.)

------
krishna2
<http://www.helveticafilm.com/>

About the film: Helvetica is a feature-length independent film about
typography, graphic design and global visual culture. It looks at the
proliferation of one typeface (which celebrated its 50th birthday in 2007) as
part of a larger conversation about the way type affects our lives. The film
is an exploration of urban spaces in major cities and the type that inhabits
them, and a fluid discussion with renowned designers about their work, the
creative process, and the choices and aesthetics behind their use of type.

~~~
MikeCapone
By total coincidence I watched that movie yesterday. I enjoyed it, though it's
mostly just a bunch of people's opinion about Helvetica/modernism/post-
modernism. Doesn't good much deeper than that in typeface design.

Can't remember where I heard about it (possibly MetaFilter, or here?).

~~~
anigbrowl
MeFi, it was posted there a couple of days ago including the film link. My
favorite comment from the the resulting thread was 'Impact or go home, font
dorks', which I have been unable to get out of my head since.

------
madair
Does anyone know of reputable research and blind tests that back up the common
designer sentiment against Arial?

The reaction of many designers seems to smell of elitism and subjectivism more
than anything to me, but I'll be happily proven wrong.

Are designers commonly aware of _why Arial exists_. I presume many designers
must understand the very strong business & licensing reasons for Microsoft to
have developed this typeface.

Do many designers also understand the distinctly different approach to pixel
alignment in display faces, which some people prefer while others prefer
Apple's approach (I subjectively prefer Microsoft's approach).

It's easy to pile onto the _I hate Microsoft and everything they touch_
bandwagon, but how much unbiased and objective research has been applied to
the question of qualitative value to the target audience? Is an old typeface
only good if it's designed by the Swiss?

Something is stinky here. There are so many subjective factors at play while
the language surrounding debate rarely recognizes those factors.

[Update: As noted by DrJokepu below, Microsoft didn't develop the font
originally. I think the underlying licensing and business considerations
remain a similar discussion.]

~~~
jacobmorse
It isn't so much an issue of taste (or sentiment) as much as it is an issue of
the design itself. Typography is about math/geometry as much as it is about
taste. Helvetica was designed first, meticulously. Arial came later,
resembling Helvetica, but breaking many typographic rules.

I'm a designer and I'm not particularly (at least not inordinately)
impassioned about things like this, but I do find it important to recognize
the difference between _design_ and art. It's often less about subjective
preferences and more about purposeful/thoughtful solutions—in this case, what
constitutes acceptable typography.

~~~
DrJokepu
Note that Arial is not based on Helvetica, it is more like a cousin of
Helvetica. Arial's ancestor is Grotesque 215. There's an excellent article
about that here: <http://www.ms-studio.com/articlesarialsid.html>

------
aw3c2
This is blogspam, [http://ragbag.tumblr.com/post/187708731/arial-helvetica-
on-f...](http://ragbag.tumblr.com/post/187708731/arial-helvetica-on-friday-i-
hosted-a-screening) is the actual source.

------
mingyeow
Loved this article. Amazing how such a subtle difference can cause such a big
difference in visual impact

~~~
sachinag
Um, the fact that there is a HOWTO tell the difference tells me that there
isn't really much of a difference in real-world visual impact. Sure, Helvetica
kerns a lot better than Arial, but the vast majority of people _don't see the
difference_.

~~~
pmichaud
It might not be obvious given a few characters, but the overall impact is
huge.

People who don't know the difference, and can't articulate it, will /still/
know something is wrong, even though they can't put their finger on it.

~~~
jeff18
Which one should we use so that people don't feel bad due to our choice of
minutely different font?

~~~
pmichaud
Meaning, which is the higher quality font between Arial and Helvetica?

Helvetica is the winner. Geometry is much tighter, plus the kerning and
hinting is far better, and you have the possibility of using the many faces in
the family from ultra condensed, to wide, from light to black.

------
MikeCapone
Strange timing. Yesterday I watched the documentary "Helvetica" (2007) which
is all about typefaces:

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0847817/>

~~~
dreish
Funny, I was just reading about the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon recently.

~~~
MikeCapone
Thanks for giving me the name of that phenomenon. I knew about it - wasn't
pretending that it was some supernatural occurance - just that even if you
know about it, it still feels a bit strange when it happens.

------
btn
For people more typographically inclined, there is a much analysis and history
of Arial at: <http://www.ms-studio.com/articles.html>

------
lamnk
OK now i know the difference and how to spot Arial, but can anyone show me why
is Helvetica superior to Arial ?

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I was under the impression that Arial was a cheap knock-off of Helvetica. They
took a similar font and reshaped it so it could stand in for Helvetica.

Clearly this is uninspired, much like a KDE theme trying to recreate Mac OS X.
There's no actual law that says such a knock-off must be inferior to the
original but a) it's off to a bad start, and b) even if it ties with the
original it's got the taint of being a rip-off motivated by greed.

The full history of Arial, from a link someone else posted: <http://www.ms-
studio.com/articles.html>

Note that Red Hat has in turn commisioned a font that is "metric compatible"
with Arial: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_fonts>

~~~
blasdel
If they wanted an exact knock-off they could do so perfectly legally -- the
only defensible IP afforded to typefaces is the trademark on their names --
the set of shapes for use in typesetting cannot be copyrighted or otherwise
protected.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
The link I provided above covers this and suggests that the foundry that
created Arial didn't want to be a blatant pirate, so instead did just enough
to pretend they weren't ripping off Helvetica.

 _"What is really strange about Arial is that it appears that Monotype was
uncomfortable about doing a direct copy of Helvetica. They could very easily
have done that and gotten away with it. Many type manufacturers in the past
have done knock-offs of Helvetica that were indistinguishable or nearly so.
[...] It’s quite possible that most of the “Helvetica” seen in the ’70s was
actually not Helvetica.

Now, Monotype was a respected type foundry with a glorious past and perhaps
the idea of being associated with these “pirates” was unacceptable. So,
instead, they found a loophole and devised an “original” design that just
happens to share exactly the same proportions and weight as another typeface.

This, to my mind, is almost worse than an outright copy. A copy, it could be
said, pays homage (if not license fees) to the original by its very existence.
Arial, on the other hand, pretends to be different. It says, in effect “I’m
not Helvetica. I don’t even look like Helvetica!”, but gladly steps into the
same shoes. In fact, it has no other role."_

------
onreact-com
I'm afraid most hackers need a chart showing differences between Arial and
Verdana or even worse, Arial and Times!

