7 ms·

Roboto vs Helvetica Neue: Can you distinguish the new Android typeface?

24 points by jtauber 15y ago

sp332 15y ago
I don't get it. Aside from the block capitals, they are pretty distinguishable. Roboto's verticals are generally thicker. The round letters are taller and less round. Roboto has a bit of a curve on the long lines, for example at the bottom of the W. Helvetica's straight lines are actually straight. Roboto has trapezoidal stems on qrpgdb, and the curved lines on those letters get a lot thinner near the vertical. The k has a horizontal bar. The ascenders on lowercase letters are taller than capital letters, but Helvetica keeps them the same height. Edit: of course this doesn't even account for kerning, punctuation, etc.
- jtauber 15y ago
  The fact they are distinguishable on many letters is why the quest exists. See http://typewar.com/stats/typeface_pair/Helvetica_Neue/Roboto/ http://typewar.com/stats/typeface_pair/Helvetica_Neue/Roboto... for what letters people find easy to distinguish and not so easy.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- FireBeyond 15y ago
  The screaming one to me is that O in Helvetica is a circular shape, whereas Roboto has vertical lines. There are definite similarities, but a multitude of fairly significant differences.
- Steko 15y ago
  Looks like a ripoff to me: http://theunderstatement.com/post/11645166791/roboto-vs-helvetica http://theunderstatement.com/post/11645166791/roboto-vs-helv...
  - ajross 15y ago
    I see two sans serif fonts in the same broad style and line width. It's not clear if the identical metrics are the defaults or an artifact of the presentation there (though "stealing" font metrics for the purpose of layout unification has a history much longer than the tech industry's). And Helvetica Neue is hardly an Apple invention anyway; it's a rejiggering of an ancient font everyone has been using and cloning for decades. Really, what's the point here? That Roboto is another entry in the Helvetica/Arial family of sans serif typefaces? Shocking! Edit: If I had to find a flame in this area: I think it can be argued that if Google really wanted to make the Roboto font into part of the Android brand, to the extent that they market it via its own name, they should have worked harder at making it unique. This is, indeed, a very bland tweaking of a strong existing standard. It's not something particularly notable.
    - Steko 15y ago
      No one said it's an Apple ripoff, it's a Helvetica ripoff and not the first (famously). It does epitomize the difference between Apple, which just goes and writes the check and Google, who seem intent on following Microsoft down a road of "embrace and extend".
      - sp332 15y ago
        Microsoft licensed Frutiger and Segoe for their mobile platform.
        Steko 15y ago
        Microsoft today and MS in the 80's and 90's are really different beasts. MS today is like the wild cat that got neutered, gained 15 pounds and now he just flops on the carpet all day and waits for din din. Thank you EU antitrust regulators.
      - ajross 15y ago
        Dude, it's a font. How does a font (one with apparently compatible metrics, even) constitute "embrace and extend?" And what's wrong with cloning a font? You seem to be making a moral point here, but I can't for the life of me see what it is.
alecbenzer 15y ago
I commented here as well: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3130877 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3130877, but does it really make sense to compare individual letters of fonts? I'd think that a well designed font would be able to convey a different feel when looking at large bodies of text (larger than single letters, at least) via subtle nuances, even if individual letters look like those in a different font.
- amartya916 15y ago
  Absolutely on the money. Roboto looks really similar to Helvetica; in fact, so similar, that it wouldn't be improper to accuse Google of ripping off something without due credit (at least the presentation had nothing to say about Helvetica). Google has the money to license a font, and with Apple moving to Helvetica Neue as the default font on iOS , Helvetica could have been a fair option. That being said, I like Robota and am glad that Android has a nicer font now. Also, people don't care, or shouldn't have to care, if it's Helvetica or something else, as long as it is more pleasing to the eye. On that count, Google did a good thing; good but not classy.
- jtauber 15y ago
  We'll likely add testing on larger bodies of text at some point.
- sjm 15y ago
  I agree. Individual letters don't really say much about the typeface, and that's not at all how we use them. When it comes to the use of a mobile OS' main typeface, it would make more sense to compare words and short phrases, and I think the two would probably be more distinguishable by a larger set of people than this test will probably show. FWIW I got 70% — some letters are definitely similar, but others were very distinguishable.
- ryandvm 15y ago
  Definitely. Comparing fonts letter by letter is something only a font priest could do. Here is a paragraph comparison I found on the other Hacker News post on the matter: https://minus.com/lYhmsD1xeT9ap https://minus.com/lYhmsD1xeT9ap
Luyt 15y ago
That site is excruciatingly slow. I had to wait 20 seconds for every page!
- jtauber 15y ago
  Sorry, we're get high load at the moment
nknight 15y ago
I have a better question: Does anyone care? Seriously? The debate has degenerated to whether Google is ripping off Apple's choice of font? WTF?
- sp332 15y ago
  This isn't about Apple. Helvetica is one of the most popular fonts, it's used everywhere. edited
  - jtauber 15y ago
    Actually, the point is just to play a fun typeface recognition game :-)
    - sp332 15y ago
      Haha, OK, I was thinking of this other post on the topic https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3130822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3130822
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - tptacek 15y ago
    It's really not. Google probably can't get the rights to Helvetica because of the way Android is licensed. I wouldn't want to call "homages" to Helvetica a "time honored tradition", but that's only because "tradition" seems like the wrong word. Nobody's been injured here.
  - nknight 15y ago
    (Edit: Comment I responded to initially made reference to an entity holding "the rights" to Helvetica.) What rights are those, exactly? Typefaces are not copyrightable under US law. You can get design patents, but Helvetica was developed in 1957, any such patent would be long expired. You can trademark the name, but that's of no consequence here. You can copyright a particular "font file" in much the same way you can copyright a block of code, but that doesn't prevent someone else from creating their own version that is visually indistinguishable. So, what rights would be violated here, exactly?
Daishiman 15y ago
They're clearly distinguishable on both paragraphs and individual glyphs to me.
- beej71 15y ago
  Don't know why you got the downvote, but learning to distinguish fonts is a skill that many people haven't acquired. A friend of mine has a brain that just ignores the glyphs entirely--he'd read a research paper in comic sans and not think twice about it. I'd think only the top 1% of font enthusiasts would be able to identify a sans font for a single "T" or "V", but Roboto has plenty of giveaways from Helvetica in the a, e, q, p, b, d, x, g, etc. Used in a sentence, I'd be able to identify it over Helvetica every time.
  - Daishiman 15y ago
    I am by no means a font fanboy, but it's evident to me that Roboto's guidelines clearly differ in the preferred dimensions and curving from Helvetica. Moreover, it appears (at least on my monitor) to be a much more readable font.
btn 15y ago
Wasn't this covered already with "Arial vs. Helvetia"? (http://ilovetypography.com/2007/10/06/arial-versus-helvetica/ http://ilovetypography.com/2007/10/06/arial-versus-helvetica...) I think what's going to distinguish these fonts isn't their individual character forms (which I do think are significantly different, perhaps even more so than Arial and Helvetica), but their optimisations. That is, how Roboto has been given ligatures, kerning, and hinting to make it work well on mobile phone screens at the sizes it'll be rendered at. (Also, the typewar quiz is a little unfair: it's hard to scrutinise character width and it doesn't seem to include numerals---areas where there are quite noticeable differences between the two.)
beej71 15y ago
Friends, I'm afraid the news is even worse than originally reported. Apparently not only does Roboto copy Helvetica, but it apparently also simultaneously copies Ascender Corp's Liberation Sans, URW++'s Nimbus Sans L, and Microsoft's Arial! And the investigation has only begun--it is too early to determine how many other Helvetica clones it might have copied.
Steko 15y ago
Beyond the similarities there are some interesting comments from professionals and responses by the Roboto designer here: http://typographica.org/2011/on-typography/roboto-typeface-is-a-four-headed-frankenstein/ http://typographica.org/2011/on-typography/roboto-typeface-i...
degusta 15y ago
(Disclosure: I did the understatement.com piece) I agree with many of the points people are making (there are some differences, there are many Helvetica/etc based fonts, etc). Really the most amusing thing to me is that Google made a big deal out of the type change - it was the first point in their Ice Cream Sandwich launch. Can you imagine if at Apple's iPhone 4/iOS 4 launch they said "and our first big feature is: we're dropping Helvetica! For Helvetica Neue!"

24 points by jtauber 15y ago

sp332 15y ago

I don't get it. Aside from the block capitals, they are pretty distinguishable. Roboto's verticals are generally thicker. The round letters are taller and less round. Roboto has a bit of a curve on the long lines, for example at the bottom of the W. Helvetica's straight lines are actually straight. Roboto has trapezoidal stems on qrpgdb, and the curved lines on those letters get a lot thinner near the vertical. The k has a horizontal bar. The ascenders on lowercase letters are taller than capital letters, but Helvetica keeps them the same height. Edit: of course this doesn't even account for kerning, punctuation, etc.

jtauber 15y ago
The fact they are distinguishable on many letters is why the quest exists. See http://typewar.com/stats/typeface_pair/Helvetica_Neue/Roboto/ http://typewar.com/stats/typeface_pair/Helvetica_Neue/Roboto... for what letters people find easy to distinguish and not so easy.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
FireBeyond 15y ago
The screaming one to me is that O in Helvetica is a circular shape, whereas Roboto has vertical lines. There are definite similarities, but a multitude of fairly significant differences.
Steko 15y ago
Looks like a ripoff to me: http://theunderstatement.com/post/11645166791/roboto-vs-helvetica http://theunderstatement.com/post/11645166791/roboto-vs-helv...
- ajross 15y ago
  I see two sans serif fonts in the same broad style and line width. It's not clear if the identical metrics are the defaults or an artifact of the presentation there (though "stealing" font metrics for the purpose of layout unification has a history much longer than the tech industry's). And Helvetica Neue is hardly an Apple invention anyway; it's a rejiggering of an ancient font everyone has been using and cloning for decades. Really, what's the point here? That Roboto is another entry in the Helvetica/Arial family of sans serif typefaces? Shocking! Edit: If I had to find a flame in this area: I think it can be argued that if Google really wanted to make the Roboto font into part of the Android brand, to the extent that they market it via its own name, they should have worked harder at making it unique. This is, indeed, a very bland tweaking of a strong existing standard. It's not something particularly notable.
  - Steko 15y ago
    No one said it's an Apple ripoff, it's a Helvetica ripoff and not the first (famously). It does epitomize the difference between Apple, which just goes and writes the check and Google, who seem intent on following Microsoft down a road of "embrace and extend".
    - sp332 15y ago
      Microsoft licensed Frutiger and Segoe for their mobile platform.
      - Steko 15y ago
        Microsoft today and MS in the 80's and 90's are really different beasts. MS today is like the wild cat that got neutered, gained 15 pounds and now he just flops on the carpet all day and waits for din din. Thank you EU antitrust regulators.
    - ajross 15y ago
      Dude, it's a font. How does a font (one with apparently compatible metrics, even) constitute "embrace and extend?" And what's wrong with cloning a font? You seem to be making a moral point here, but I can't for the life of me see what it is.

alecbenzer 15y ago

I commented here as well: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3130877 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3130877, but does it really make sense to compare individual letters of fonts? I'd think that a well designed font would be able to convey a different feel when looking at large bodies of text (larger than single letters, at least) via subtle nuances, even if individual letters look like those in a different font.

amartya916 15y ago
Absolutely on the money. Roboto looks really similar to Helvetica; in fact, so similar, that it wouldn't be improper to accuse Google of ripping off something without due credit (at least the presentation had nothing to say about Helvetica). Google has the money to license a font, and with Apple moving to Helvetica Neue as the default font on iOS , Helvetica could have been a fair option. That being said, I like Robota and am glad that Android has a nicer font now. Also, people don't care, or shouldn't have to care, if it's Helvetica or something else, as long as it is more pleasing to the eye. On that count, Google did a good thing; good but not classy.
jtauber 15y ago
We'll likely add testing on larger bodies of text at some point.
sjm 15y ago
I agree. Individual letters don't really say much about the typeface, and that's not at all how we use them. When it comes to the use of a mobile OS' main typeface, it would make more sense to compare words and short phrases, and I think the two would probably be more distinguishable by a larger set of people than this test will probably show. FWIW I got 70% — some letters are definitely similar, but others were very distinguishable.
ryandvm 15y ago
Definitely. Comparing fonts letter by letter is something only a font priest could do. Here is a paragraph comparison I found on the other Hacker News post on the matter: https://minus.com/lYhmsD1xeT9ap https://minus.com/lYhmsD1xeT9ap

Luyt 15y ago

That site is excruciatingly slow. I had to wait 20 seconds for every page!

jtauber 15y ago
Sorry, we're get high load at the moment

nknight 15y ago

I have a better question: Does anyone care? Seriously? The debate has degenerated to whether Google is ripping off Apple's choice of font? WTF?

sp332 15y ago
This isn't about Apple. Helvetica is one of the most popular fonts, it's used everywhere. edited
- jtauber 15y ago
  Actually, the point is just to play a fun typeface recognition game :-)
  - sp332 15y ago
    Haha, OK, I was thinking of this other post on the topic https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3130822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3130822
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 15y ago
  It's really not. Google probably can't get the rights to Helvetica because of the way Android is licensed. I wouldn't want to call "homages" to Helvetica a "time honored tradition", but that's only because "tradition" seems like the wrong word. Nobody's been injured here.
- nknight 15y ago
  (Edit: Comment I responded to initially made reference to an entity holding "the rights" to Helvetica.) What rights are those, exactly? Typefaces are not copyrightable under US law. You can get design patents, but Helvetica was developed in 1957, any such patent would be long expired. You can trademark the name, but that's of no consequence here. You can copyright a particular "font file" in much the same way you can copyright a block of code, but that doesn't prevent someone else from creating their own version that is visually indistinguishable. So, what rights would be violated here, exactly?

Daishiman 15y ago

They're clearly distinguishable on both paragraphs and individual glyphs to me.

beej71 15y ago
Don't know why you got the downvote, but learning to distinguish fonts is a skill that many people haven't acquired. A friend of mine has a brain that just ignores the glyphs entirely--he'd read a research paper in comic sans and not think twice about it. I'd think only the top 1% of font enthusiasts would be able to identify a sans font for a single "T" or "V", but Roboto has plenty of giveaways from Helvetica in the a, e, q, p, b, d, x, g, etc. Used in a sentence, I'd be able to identify it over Helvetica every time.
- Daishiman 15y ago
  I am by no means a font fanboy, but it's evident to me that Roboto's guidelines clearly differ in the preferred dimensions and curving from Helvetica. Moreover, it appears (at least on my monitor) to be a much more readable font.

btn 15y ago

Wasn't this covered already with "Arial vs. Helvetia"? (http://ilovetypography.com/2007/10/06/arial-versus-helvetica/ http://ilovetypography.com/2007/10/06/arial-versus-helvetica...) I think what's going to distinguish these fonts isn't their individual character forms (which I do think are significantly different, perhaps even more so than Arial and Helvetica), but their optimisations. That is, how Roboto has been given ligatures, kerning, and hinting to make it work well on mobile phone screens at the sizes it'll be rendered at. (Also, the typewar quiz is a little unfair: it's hard to scrutinise character width and it doesn't seem to include numerals---areas where there are quite noticeable differences between the two.)

beej71 15y ago

Friends, I'm afraid the news is even worse than originally reported. Apparently not only does Roboto copy Helvetica, but it apparently also simultaneously copies Ascender Corp's Liberation Sans, URW++'s Nimbus Sans L, and Microsoft's Arial! And the investigation has only begun--it is too early to determine how many other Helvetica clones it might have copied.

Steko 15y ago

Beyond the similarities there are some interesting comments from professionals and responses by the Roboto designer here: http://typographica.org/2011/on-typography/roboto-typeface-is-a-four-headed-frankenstein/ http://typographica.org/2011/on-typography/roboto-typeface-i...

degusta 15y ago

(Disclosure: I did the understatement.com piece) I agree with many of the points people are making (there are some differences, there are many Helvetica/etc based fonts, etc). Really the most amusing thing to me is that Google made a big deal out of the type change - it was the first point in their Ice Cream Sandwich launch. Can you imagine if at Apple's iPhone 4/iOS 4 launch they said "and our first big feature is: we're dropping Helvetica! For Helvetica Neue!"