4 ms·
Essentially, the argument made by Butterick and others is that choosing Arial as a font is not a choice but indicates the absence of a choice, since it is a sys
by themulticaster 6y ago
Essentially, the argument made by Butterick and others is that choosing Arial as a font is not a choice but indicates the absence of a choice, since it is a system font. [1] At the very end of that page he writes a few paragraphs exactly why he dislikes Arial.
Regarding alternatives: "[...] Arial is permanently associated with the work of people who will never care about typography. You’re not one of those people. So use Avenir. Use Franklin Gothic. Use Gill Sans. Use one of the fonts listed in Helvetica and Arial alternatives [2]. Or use something completely different. But don’t use Arial. It’s the sans serif of last resort."
[1] https://practicaltypography.com/system-fonts.html https://practicaltypography.com/system-fonts.html
[2] https://practicaltypography.com/helvetica-and-arial-alternatives.html https://practicaltypography.com/helvetica-and-arial-alternat...
- loloquwowndueo 6y agoCOMIC SANS FOREVER!!!
- azinman2 6y agoArial IS Helvetica, just made for the screen by Microsoft. It is not optimized for print.
- Kwpolska 6y agoArial is a knock-off of Helvetica with some minor design changes that are not related to screen vs print. If it isn’t “optimized for print”, then Helvetica isn’t either.
- azinman2 6y agoYou’re right, my memory was wrong. It is a clone with the same metrics so layout wouldn’t change if you picked one versus the other. Microsoft paid monotype to port it to TrueType in 1990 which I believe was optimized for the screen. My memory of that is from the Helvetica documentary I watched maybe 10 years ago, so the specifics are hazy.