4 ms·

Very interesting tidbits on the history of Arial. My line of work often makes me share editable word processor documents with clients. I love Helvetica, but I

Very interesting tidbits on the history of Arial. My line of work often makes me share editable word processor documents with clients. I love Helvetica, but I have a strong dislike of Arial. In fact if I could choose I would use something similar to Frutiger or Myriad as a sans-serif. But when I have to prepare such documents with a sans-serif font, I always use Arial, because it looks decent enough, and everyone is almost guaranteed to have it. Nothing shiny, but a good workhorse.

Bluestein 1y ago
> would use something similar to Frutiger or Myriad Noted. Will try them :)
- sombragris 1y ago
  we're deep in off-topic territory, but maybe you'll find useful the LaTeX Font Catalogue. It's for LaTeX, but you can get and install all those fonts system-wide. Here's the link for the sans-serif fonts: https://tug.org/FontCatalogue/sansseriffonts.html https://tug.org/FontCatalogue/sansseriffonts.html
  - Bluestein 1y ago
    Really appreciate it. Will definitely check it out.-
spookie 1y ago
May I suggest Linux Biolinum in the "if I could use" category. Very elegant and readable.
- sombragris 1y ago
  While Biolinum is certainly free to use, install, and download, not everyone has it on their computers. Besides that, and from a subjective standpoint, I don't like it very much. (Libertine is great as a serif font, though). Even though I don't like it, Arial at least is almost guaranteed to exist on a destination device. An added plus is that is very well hinted, thus making it very readable at almost every font size on screens.
TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
Fonts are a weird corner of perceptual psychology. They have such tiny variations but for people who care about these things, the aesthetic difference between Helv and Arial is huge. (I suspect many people are font-blind, at least consciously.) Your reactions are typical, and match mine, but I'm not sure anyone really understands why those reactions exist. And the idea that MS spent a fortune trying to improve the look and ended up with the Arial they did is - interesting. The other weirdness is that the origin font of both Helv and Arial - Bauer's Venus - was released in 1907, and Akzidenz, which preceded it, was released in 1898. Venus Bold Extended was a signature font of the 50s & 60s, but it was already more than 40 years old by then. The definitively modern sans/grotesque aesthetic literally has Victorian roots.
- quietbritishjim 1y ago
  > And the idea that MS spent a fortune trying to improve the look and ended up with the Arial they did is - interesting. That doesn't match what the article says. It says that IBM, not Microsoft, originally commissioned Arial. It mentions that Microsoft may have adjusted the spacing to match Helvetica, but that's all. It also seems to imply that the main reason for creating Arial was to be legally distinct from Helvetica, rather being an improvement as such (though I doubt they specifically wanted it to look worse). Is there some other part of its history that you're referring to here? To be fair, it would be in character with Microsoft to try and improve a visual style and make it worse. They have a treadmill of visual design changes, seemingly just so visual designers and product managers can claim to have make a mark rather than because they're actually better. That results in occasional successes (e.g., Win95 and Win7 compared to their predecessors) and some obvious flops (e.g. WinXP window borders, Win11 taskbar - not an exhaustive list!).
  - Bluestein 1y ago
    > not an exhaustive list! ... that (then) newfangled translucent look with Vista (yuck).-

Bluestein 1y ago

> would use something similar to Frutiger or Myriad Noted. Will try them :)

sombragris 1y ago
we're deep in off-topic territory, but maybe you'll find useful the LaTeX Font Catalogue. It's for LaTeX, but you can get and install all those fonts system-wide. Here's the link for the sans-serif fonts: https://tug.org/FontCatalogue/sansseriffonts.html https://tug.org/FontCatalogue/sansseriffonts.html
- Bluestein 1y ago
  Really appreciate it. Will definitely check it out.-

spookie 1y ago

May I suggest Linux Biolinum in the "if I could use" category. Very elegant and readable.

sombragris 1y ago
While Biolinum is certainly free to use, install, and download, not everyone has it on their computers. Besides that, and from a subjective standpoint, I don't like it very much. (Libertine is great as a serif font, though). Even though I don't like it, Arial at least is almost guaranteed to exist on a destination device. An added plus is that is very well hinted, thus making it very readable at almost every font size on screens.

TheOtherHobbes 1y ago

Fonts are a weird corner of perceptual psychology. They have such tiny variations but for people who care about these things, the aesthetic difference between Helv and Arial is huge. (I suspect many people are font-blind, at least consciously.) Your reactions are typical, and match mine, but I'm not sure anyone really understands why those reactions exist. And the idea that MS spent a fortune trying to improve the look and ended up with the Arial they did is - interesting. The other weirdness is that the origin font of both Helv and Arial - Bauer's Venus - was released in 1907, and Akzidenz, which preceded it, was released in 1898. Venus Bold Extended was a signature font of the 50s & 60s, but it was already more than 40 years old by then. The definitively modern sans/grotesque aesthetic literally has Victorian roots.

quietbritishjim 1y ago
> And the idea that MS spent a fortune trying to improve the look and ended up with the Arial they did is - interesting. That doesn't match what the article says. It says that IBM, not Microsoft, originally commissioned Arial. It mentions that Microsoft may have adjusted the spacing to match Helvetica, but that's all. It also seems to imply that the main reason for creating Arial was to be legally distinct from Helvetica, rather being an improvement as such (though I doubt they specifically wanted it to look worse). Is there some other part of its history that you're referring to here? To be fair, it would be in character with Microsoft to try and improve a visual style and make it worse. They have a treadmill of visual design changes, seemingly just so visual designers and product managers can claim to have make a mark rather than because they're actually better. That results in occasional successes (e.g., Win95 and Win7 compared to their predecessors) and some obvious flops (e.g. WinXP window borders, Win11 taskbar - not an exhaustive list!).
- Bluestein 1y ago
  > not an exhaustive list! ... that (then) newfangled translucent look with Vista (yuck).-