3 ms·

Just because Helvetica wasn't designed or hinted for modern displays doesn't necessarily imply it looks bad on them, far from it. It's handsome typeface and its

Just because Helvetica wasn't designed or hinted for modern displays doesn't necessarily imply it looks bad on them, far from it. It's handsome typeface and its legacy lives on in typefaces like Roboto and San Francisco, which are designed and hinted for modern displays. And as for Arial, most of the attitude directed towards it is nothing more than anti-Microsoft snobbishness.

fredley 10y ago
I agree. If most of the people viewing your site/app/whatever are using high DPI screens, use whatever font you want to. Most accusations of 'looks terrible on screens!' apply to low DPI screens (which, I'll admit, most people still have, and will continue to have).
- nikanj 10y ago
  I am going to go even further, and admit most people on those low DPI screens don't think they look that terrible. Designers have extremely high standards, and often err to the side of stylish instead of readable. You might be surprised how many people prefer 17pt comic sans to the crisp 7pt pale-gray-on-white designers usually label "joy to read" or "beautiful".
  - throwawayish 10y ago
    > to the crisp 7pt pale-gray-on-white designers usually label "joy to read" or "beautiful". Perhaps because they are actually neither and many designers are not well-versed in typography. Making text beautiful (but not necessarily readable) is design; making text readable (but not necessarily beautiful) is typography. They of course, overlap, and good typography usually looks good as well.
- jimmies 10y ago
  Also, Arial is among the few fonts that displays right without anti-aliasing (aka XP era). I know people who prefer crisp fonts and have anti-aliasing turned off on their screen for whatever reason. Georgia is inferior in that regard.
ieatkittens 10y ago
>And as for Arial, most of the attitude directed towards it is nothing more than anti-Microsoft snobbishness. I disagree. Arial features some truly revolting glyphs. The R being the worst offender. Probably of any font I can think of. The G is also pretty disgusting. On the other hand I find it hard to make something look bad using only Helvetica.

fredley 10y ago

I agree. If most of the people viewing your site/app/whatever are using high DPI screens, use whatever font you want to. Most accusations of 'looks terrible on screens!' apply to low DPI screens (which, I'll admit, most people still have, and will continue to have).

nikanj 10y ago
I am going to go even further, and admit most people on those low DPI screens don't think they look that terrible. Designers have extremely high standards, and often err to the side of stylish instead of readable. You might be surprised how many people prefer 17pt comic sans to the crisp 7pt pale-gray-on-white designers usually label "joy to read" or "beautiful".
- throwawayish 10y ago
  > to the crisp 7pt pale-gray-on-white designers usually label "joy to read" or "beautiful". Perhaps because they are actually neither and many designers are not well-versed in typography. Making text beautiful (but not necessarily readable) is design; making text readable (but not necessarily beautiful) is typography. They of course, overlap, and good typography usually looks good as well.
jimmies 10y ago
Also, Arial is among the few fonts that displays right without anti-aliasing (aka XP era). I know people who prefer crisp fonts and have anti-aliasing turned off on their screen for whatever reason. Georgia is inferior in that regard.

ieatkittens 10y ago

>And as for Arial, most of the attitude directed towards it is nothing more than anti-Microsoft snobbishness. I disagree. Arial features some truly revolting glyphs. The R being the worst offender. Probably of any font I can think of. The G is also pretty disgusting. On the other hand I find it hard to make something look bad using only Helvetica.