3 ms·

Substituting Arial by Helvetica is the ultimate expression of pointless counterproductive font snobbery. If you really want to do the world some good, substitu

Substituting Arial by Helvetica is the ultimate expression of pointless counterproductive font snobbery. If you really want to do the world some good, substitute by something that a) isn't boring and overused b) isn't almost indistinguishable from what you're substituting c) isn't non-free with onerous licensing terms especially when used in the web d) isn't worse and unoptimized for screen, non-print purposes Now queue the font snobs' complaints ;)

8ytecoder 4y ago
This comment would be more useful if you recommended such a font.
- throwaway294566 4y ago
  One part of "not boring" is picking one that fits your taste and the style of the site you are using it on. So there cannot be one canonical recommendation. Google fonts is full of usable stuff. Just have the courage to pick something that isn't mainstream yawn-inducing boredom. The other points are almost automatically satisified. For GDPR reasons, copy the font file to your webserver (caching won't work anyways in modern browsers). But if you really really want something safe, easy, no-thinking-required that works for almost everything, on most devices, is readable on screens, looks modern but sufficiently boring and inoffensive, has big unicode coverage: use Roboto.
  - toastal 4y ago
    Use them sure, but don't use Google's CDN and leak your user's data to Google's servers. It's not difficult to self-host the WOFF2 fonts.
quesera 4y ago
Consider me cued. Not queued, that's something else. I just dislike looking at the weak copy of Helvetica that Microsoft calls Arial, so I will replace it with some neo-grotesque that is close to the designer's intent. Helvetica is an easy choice. (Note that Arial itself was intended as a replacement for Helvetica when Helvetica is not available. Now that design in Arial is more common, it hardly feels wrong to replace Arial with the original -- and more-pleasing -- Helvetica. Personal preference yes, but what higher motivation is there?) Don't get me started on Verdana. But they did a pretty good job with Tahoma at least.
wodenokoto 4y ago
Sure, I'll bite. a, b: The point is to correct what amounts to a a slight, unsightly, visual error. What you are suggesting is repainting the room in a new color, because there was a spot missed when applying the first layer of paint. c: I already have a license for that font and I am not forcing it on anyone else. This is like saying "Don't boot your mac into MacOS - it's non-free!" I know, I paid for it. d: I have a retina display. My pixel density is big enough that I don't need to bend the font to fit into the grid.
systemvoltage 4y ago
Gruber’s deeper point is that Apple is so particular about design and design standards. Apple has their own typeface. So having this slip through is, jokingly, a fire-able offense. It’s actually not about font snobbery, but about mocking Apple about their design standards. It’s a joke, not sure why people are taking it so seriously.
- throwaway294566 4y ago
  As I'm forced to use an Apple computer for work from time to time (fortunately rarely), I do not understand how anyone can claim for Apple to have any standards. Especially when it comes to "design". Fonts look blurry and washed out everywhere. I don't care about the usual excuses, it is ugly ugly ugly...
musicale 4y ago
I've always disliked Arial. Thanks Microsoft/Monotype for making everything ugly and illegible. But my vote for the print (and PDF) typeface that has I would be very happy to never see again (at least in anything that isn't a mathematical formula) goes to Knuth/TeX's abominable Computer Modern.

8ytecoder 4y ago

This comment would be more useful if you recommended such a font.

throwaway294566 4y ago
One part of "not boring" is picking one that fits your taste and the style of the site you are using it on. So there cannot be one canonical recommendation. Google fonts is full of usable stuff. Just have the courage to pick something that isn't mainstream yawn-inducing boredom. The other points are almost automatically satisified. For GDPR reasons, copy the font file to your webserver (caching won't work anyways in modern browsers). But if you really really want something safe, easy, no-thinking-required that works for almost everything, on most devices, is readable on screens, looks modern but sufficiently boring and inoffensive, has big unicode coverage: use Roboto.
- toastal 4y ago
  Use them sure, but don't use Google's CDN and leak your user's data to Google's servers. It's not difficult to self-host the WOFF2 fonts.

quesera 4y ago

Consider me cued. Not queued, that's something else. I just dislike looking at the weak copy of Helvetica that Microsoft calls Arial, so I will replace it with some neo-grotesque that is close to the designer's intent. Helvetica is an easy choice. (Note that Arial itself was intended as a replacement for Helvetica when Helvetica is not available. Now that design in Arial is more common, it hardly feels wrong to replace Arial with the original -- and more-pleasing -- Helvetica. Personal preference yes, but what higher motivation is there?) Don't get me started on Verdana. But they did a pretty good job with Tahoma at least.

wodenokoto 4y ago

Sure, I'll bite. a, b: The point is to correct what amounts to a a slight, unsightly, visual error. What you are suggesting is repainting the room in a new color, because there was a spot missed when applying the first layer of paint. c: I already have a license for that font and I am not forcing it on anyone else. This is like saying "Don't boot your mac into MacOS - it's non-free!" I know, I paid for it. d: I have a retina display. My pixel density is big enough that I don't need to bend the font to fit into the grid.

systemvoltage 4y ago

Gruber’s deeper point is that Apple is so particular about design and design standards. Apple has their own typeface. So having this slip through is, jokingly, a fire-able offense. It’s actually not about font snobbery, but about mocking Apple about their design standards. It’s a joke, not sure why people are taking it so seriously.

throwaway294566 4y ago
As I'm forced to use an Apple computer for work from time to time (fortunately rarely), I do not understand how anyone can claim for Apple to have any standards. Especially when it comes to "design". Fonts look blurry and washed out everywhere. I don't care about the usual excuses, it is ugly ugly ugly...

musicale 4y ago

I've always disliked Arial. Thanks Microsoft/Monotype for making everything ugly and illegible. But my vote for the print (and PDF) typeface that has I would be very happy to never see again (at least in anything that isn't a mathematical formula) goes to Knuth/TeX's abominable Computer Modern.