All those in favour say "aye"

Dearest Tom,

Saying "What's wrong with Arial aesthetically?" is a bit like comparing Greta Garbo to Jodie Marsh.

Helvetica can be expensive and if you don't have it installed on your PC then, for you, Arial will probably suffice. But just look at the way the glyph's finish on these a's.

This is Arial.

This is Helvetica.

Oooh, isn't that lovely? They didn't make a film about Arial did they?

Although desktop printers don't use the same sort of screen as a Heidelberg they don't print solid colour. Only a screen print can do that. Deskdrop printers still measure in a dpi system but it's a little different. Macus will elaborate.

And lastly, seeing as you've opened Pandora's box, all those in favour of Helvetica say "aye" below.

UPDATE: Bruno provides some historical clarity here. A must read.

Comments

[Rob Mortimer]

Its cliche, but for 26 good reasons.

Aye!

[davidthedesigner]

Aye, aye, aye.

(Though I'm also partial to a little Bodoni now and again.)

[Will]

Aye, go on then.

[TomLR]

There are two issues here. One is the printing one (even screen printing is measured in terms of dpi to a degree given it goes through a mesh)...but this is the lesser of the two and I think we shoudl drop it.

Secondly the typeface issue - which is much more interesting. There's basically very little that I believe I can learn about print here - but typefaces is a different matter. Now - for a start, given the nature of this blog - all your 'ayes' count for nothing. So I'll ignore that one. However - it is clear to anyone who cares to look (even if you've been smashed in the face with a shovel beforehand) that there's no competition between arial and helvetica - and thanks for the elegant illustration to prove it.

My question really is - that (if you can divorce yourselves from your disease and put yourselves in the real world for a minute) - do you think there's any real down side to using arial throughout your corporate communications ? Do you think it looks that bad to even people moderately appreciative of graphic design, even if used as the house typeface ? I appreciate that you designers will automatically see the vulgarity in it - but, what do you think ?

[Richard]

Aye of course!

(Just don't ask Bruno)

[Macus Bown]

Tom, you are simply wrong.

[TomLR]

Wrong about what, 'though ?

[Macus Bown]

no solid colour on laser printers. All dots. All dots.

And aye.

[TomLR]

I never said there WAS solid colour on a laser printer.

Anyway - I'm more interested in the typeface issue.

Can any of you answer my question ?
In the face of a non designer - even to someone moderately skilled in graphic design appreciation - what's the negative in using arial even (and this is important) - even if it used throughout your corporate literature ?

[Mike Towers]

Just seen this link on SWISSMISS 100 Best Fonts of all time, guess whats No. 1?

http://www.100besteschriften.de/

Mike

[Ben]

Hiya Tom,

There are many negatives in using Arial, especially over Helvetica.

I believe that Arial was designed for the screen which involves a whole set of different spacing issues to print, dot, laser, screen, hot metal or otherwise. However, I may be wrong. Either way Arial was designed by Microsoft as a copy of Helvetica because they couldn't afford to licence Helvetica with every copy of Word. Therefore it's a copy and thus by that very fact inferior.

But when we say not as good, what we're really talking about is spacing.

Bruno makes an excellent case for never minus spacing letters here
http://acejet170.typepad.com/foundthings/2006/11/bruno_maag_at_t.html#comment-25944232
and at the same time makes a pretty convincing case for Univers over Helvetica. As Bruno says, a decently designed typeface will require no spacing or kerning for basic text, 8-12 point stuff. That's because all the spacing has been worked out and designed to be read properly.

The little differences in my diagram above, would add up to big differences if you were trying to read Ulysses or a newspaper or even the back of a train ticket. I agree it's hard for the layman to imagine the difference, but there would be a gap in the legibility, I assure you. Legibility is the key and your corporate communications will have much better legibility if set in Helvetica and not Arial.

Now, if you used Arial in a big way and not just for body text, it would look damn ugly. As demonstrated by almost every PowerPoint presentation you've ever seen.

Does that help?

[davidthedesigner]

Let's put it this way Tom, if you could wear a silk shirt every day, would you really choose a Rayon one instead (simply because most people you met wouldn't be able to tell the difference)?

[Eddie Gonzalez]

Aye! I moved to the Mac and can testify to the superiority of Helvetica over Arial. Even on my PC's I have long stayed away from Arial.

[Blip]

I understand where you come from, Tom. Divorcing myself, I don't think it looks that bad. But that kind of detail many times separates good design from mediocre.

[Chris]

A definite aye. Arial is truly evil.

[claudiu]

AYE AYE AYE......There is no doubt about it

[Ulysses or a newspaper]

There is a unpleasantness to this post and the encouragement of the banal comments is stifling what could have been a interesting debate.

What was originally asked was a simple (if rather naive) question about what the aesthetic problems with using Arial are and the alternatives that one has when Helvetica is not available as a system font.

Not only not been answered, but what has followed is blog equivalent of beat-down.

The main problem with Arial (beyond the intentions behind its creation) is that the spacing used between the different characters is inconsistent. This problem isn't shown in the graphic.

Given that the majority of people cannot afford computers, let alone the licensing of fonts, what can one do about it? - http://www.designwritingresearch.org/free_fonts.html is a start - learning how to set type is another.

[Bruno Maag]

Well, well, well... a very emotional debate, this Helvetica v Arial thing. People seem to hate Arial just for the sake of it. A little bit like designer's dislike for Comic Sans.

But to start off, let's get a little bit of history right. Arial was designed in the Monotype drawing offices, for Microsoft, in the late 80s. The design is not copied, we need to be clear about this. As little as Univers is not a copy of Helvetica. What is identical with Helvetica are the horizontal metrics, spacing and kerning. As it has been pointed out, that Microsoft was not able to (or didn't want to) purchase an appropriate license. Don't forget that about 85% of all computers use Windows. For that reason, Microsoft hardly ever licenses software/fonts but instead buys the product outright. Linotype simply wouldn't have sold the rights to Helvetica.

Now, to go back to the horizontal metrics copy stuff: At the time Helvetica was present on all Macintosh computers. Remember that the early versions of the Mac only carried bitmap fonts and never any PostScript outlines. The outlines were part of the resident fonts in printers. Linotype licensed Helvetica to Adobe in return for receiving a license to produce PostScript Type 1 fonts. Therefore it was in Linotype's interest to have the bitmap fonts available in the Mac system. So, it only made sense from Microsoft's point of view to have a metrically compatible font, in TrueType format, on their systems. This then would in fact print as Helvetica!! (We could possibly start a thread on the whole PostScript v TrueType thing,too, as some people believe that TT is evil.)

The illustration that supposedly shows why Arial is inferior to Helvetica is nonsense. I can't quite see what it is supposed to show. Just because the 'a' does not have a terminal tail doesn't make it bad. Univers doesn't have one either, or Vectora, or Avenir! And if the terminal stroke of at x-height does not finish horizontally - what does it matter? Akzidenz Grotesk doesn't either and it's still a decent typeface.

All of the above doesn't mean that I am a friend of Arial. But I feel if you diss this font you need to give me stronger arguements. I am also no friend of Helvetica. In fact, I would love to see this typeface banned from use for a while. Just so designers can see that there is typographic pond life beyond.

Some people have argued about the awkward spacing. And in this respect I agree. But I also find the spacing in Helvetica quite crude. And before you respond, I want to make clear that I am not talking about Neue Helvetica, which has been reworked and actually runs on different metrics, but I am talking about the Helvetica which was resident on the Mac and on which the metrics of Arial are based.

Arial was never designed to be used as a screenfont. That it became highly legible on the screen is to do with the fact that the Monotype engineering team spent months hinting (enhancing the font for screen use) the font. And in this respect Arial is way superior to Helvetica. You can use Arial in almost any screen environment and it will be legible down to the smallest sizes.

Also, let's not forget that Arial, with the introduction of Windows 95 increased it's characterset to WGL4 which includes Latin A Extended (approx 50 languages), Cyrillic and Greek. Windows 98 saw Arial to also include Arabic and Hebrew (both secular/simplified). Helvetica up to this day hasn't gotten beyond Lat A Extended.

So, this all makes me sound a Arial-lover. But I am not, for the reasons stated above. But we cannot deny the fact that Arial is a work horse typeface, and a very successful one at that.

I apologise if my thoughts are somewhat disjointed. I tried to respond to some of the points made in the order of appearance.

Bruno Maag

[Culture is Kind]

(Just read Bruno's post, but gotta dash now so his comments aren't addressed - sorry. Funny that he went into the history element - will make more sense below)

As a cultural insight dude - whatever ‘that’ is! - a fair bit of my work involves trawling and using design - which I love. Design is one of the best lenses for spotting emerging culture. So, I suppose what I really 'do', is 'design culture' rather than 'design' per se.

So, why is Helvetica the best font I ask? It is because its graphic properties are somehow more superior to the rest (‘fact’. end of); that they somehow resonate most strongly with our innate psychology on what's 'attractive design'? Or, is it because the design community has socially agreed principles on what constitutes good design (its design period, kerning etc.) - ones that the lay person is not in touch with?

My feeling is that it's the latter i.e. if Helvetica had been the default font on MS Word from day one I doubt it would still be held in such high regard by graphic designers. I suppose what I'm saying, is that graphic fonts are unable to stand outside of their own fashion cycle. For example, in non-design circles, I'd say the evolution from Times New Roman to Arial to Verdana has been pretty standard - which is why I hate Verdana as much as you guys hate Arial … so bloody ‘try hard’ and chunky!

Going back to my earlier question, I'm keen to find out why Helvetica is the designer's choice. From a socio-historical point of view, my guess is that this event has been historically determined i.e. it is not because it has superior innate qualities because there are no universal laws as such (only socially constructed ones). My guess is that pivotal moments/events in the history of design have shaped this outcome.

So, can anyone think of any important designers, events in Apple's history etc. that may have shaped this outcome?

(Sorry for highjacking your post Ben. If I’m talking jibberish just delete it [although I expect people will just ignore it anyway!] Oh, and it’s an ‘aye’ from me … albeit not one of my own choosing!)

[Ben]

Thanks Bruno for providing some concrete historical fact. (Bruno is a fontographer and former Chairman of the Typographic Circle so he knows his onions.)

Tom, does this answer your question? Have we proved what you always suspected? Is anything any clearer? I suspect not...

Are you coming to coffee tomorrow?

[TomLR]

OK - hmmmm. I feel that on the one hand I cannot now participate in this discussion due to its technical-ness. I also feel that to you lot this is by far the most interesting end of the intellectual continuum, too. So I'll back out.

However - not before I make it a bit real. Ben - I'm going to send you some corporate comms that my company has (had) done (for itself). I think it's all done in Arial - and I think that I absolutely understand what you all mean - especially about the spacing thing, and the lots of little details adding up to one big messy picture.

And for the record - although I sense this guy Bruno is some kind of typeface dude I disagree that the illustration is nonsense (although I couldn't comment on how satisfactory it is as a tool to compare the beauty of the two fonts. I don't even know what criteria you lot would use to measure that). However - for me the Helvetica just FEELS more satisfactory - more elegant. It seems to resolve itself all of a one-ness visually and to the extent that this visual impression makes some kind of more cerebral impact. It just makes me feel that it's more refined - BETTER.

[Ben]

And coffee?

[Anush]

Every time I read an Arial vs. Helvetica post (this seems to be a favorite topic for you aesthetically erudite types) it makes me a little sad, because it reminds me there a world of gorgeous typography I am missing out on because I can't drop a hundred on fonts instead of textbooks. Then I remind myself that the first step towards curing "design disease" is accepting Arial.

[dan at innocent]

Can we do Frazzles versus Monster Munch next?

[davidthedesigner]

How about Innocent versus PJ instead?