4 ms·

Does anyone know of reputable research and blind tests that back up the common designer sentiment against Arial? The reaction of many designers seems to smell

by madair 17y ago

Does anyone know of reputable research and blind tests that back up the common designer sentiment against Arial? The reaction of many designers seems to smell of elitism and subjectivism more than anything to me, but I'll be happily proven wrong. Are designers commonly aware of why Arial exists. I presume many designers must understand the very strong business & licensing reasons for Microsoft to have developed this typeface. Do many designers also understand the distinctly different approach to pixel alignment in display faces, which some people prefer while others prefer Apple's approach (I subjectively prefer Microsoft's approach). It's easy to pile onto the I hate Microsoft and everything they touch bandwagon, but how much unbiased and objective research has been applied to the question of qualitative value to the target audience? Is an old typeface only good if it's designed by the Swiss? Something is stinky here. There are so many subjective factors at play while the language surrounding debate rarely recognizes those factors. [Update: As noted by DrJokepu below, Microsoft didn't develop the font originally. I think the underlying licensing and business considerations remain a similar discussion.]

DrJokepu 17y ago
Especially since Arial wasn't commissioned by Microsoft, it was designed in 1982 by Patricia Saunders and Robin Nicholas, commissioned by IBM for their laser printers. It was originally called Sonoran San Serif. Microsoft later shipped it with Windows 3.1.
- madair 17y ago
  Thanks for catching my error in the history.
jacobmorse 17y ago
It isn't so much an issue of taste (or sentiment) as much as it is an issue of the design itself. Typography is about math/geometry as much as it is about taste. Helvetica was designed first, meticulously. Arial came later, resembling Helvetica, but breaking many typographic rules. I'm a designer and I'm not particularly (at least not inordinately) impassioned about things like this, but I do find it important to recognize the difference between _design_ and art. It's often less about subjective preferences and more about purposeful/thoughtful solutions—in this case, what constitutes acceptable typography.
- DrJokepu 17y ago
  Note that Arial is not based on Helvetica, it is more like a cousin of Helvetica. Arial's ancestor is Grotesque 215. There's an excellent article about that here: http://www.ms-studio.com/articlesarialsid.html http://www.ms-studio.com/articlesarialsid.html
- madair 17y ago
  I agree with you that this is design, often akin to industrial design more than art, which could also be described as art meets practical considerations or too narrowly, art meets commerce. And that's why I'm casting a wide net in my remarks by bringing up pixel alignment considerations, as well as licensing and other considerations. These are critical considerations to typography in practice. For example the politics and business constraints surrounding the development, licensing, and use of Helvetica in the 90's are way more complex than simply saying, "Microsoft didn't want to pay for Helvetica", which is how many designers put it. These complaints about licensing also, by the way, give away many of their visceral emotion-based reactions to Arial, rather than objective design purity. Clearly every party is affected in some way by the commerce of design, which often seems to inform designer's reactions too, especially when the licensing question is over-simplified.
diiq 17y ago
Both fonts fulfill the purpose for which they were designed. Helvetica was built to live in a gridded world: the horizons and verticals of Swiss modernity (look again at R and see how space-consuming it is). Arial was built to look like Grotesque 215, which is what swiss designers were using before Helvetica. Arial is supposed to be more human (read: humanist), and is for on-screen and on-paper --- not signage. Designers prefer Helvetica because it is built to be used by designers; any combination of letters will pack neatly in space, both because of the letterforms themselves and the superior kerning. Arial is meant to be used for less important, less permanent documents. It is more casual, and setting a whole page of text in it does not seem cold or callous.
- kscaldef 17y ago
  All of which avoids the original question: "Does anyone know of reputable research and blind tests that back up the common designer sentiment against Arial?"
  - diiq 17y ago
    Mu. There can be no such thing. Both fonts accomplish a purpose. Many like one because they feel it is easier to design with. Any reputable designer will instantly recognize both. They are two of the most used fonts in the world. There is no way to perform a blind test. The closest thing to reputable researchers in design are designers. They spend their lives experimenting with fonts, and most prefer to use the one to the other. Some of them are following popular opinion mindlessly. Many aren't. Until some metric can be made for good design (fat chance. Also, note that readability is not the only important piece of this puzzle) no journal-worthy piece of science is going to come forward.
    - kscaldef 17y ago
      > Any reputable designer will instantly recognize both No one is asking about "reputable designers". The tiny minority of people who can recognize hundreds of fonts at a glance are not interesting when it comes to this question. There are certainly some objective metrics you can consider. Some that very quickly come to my mind: 1) Effect on reading speed 2) Effect on reading "endurance" (a little harder to define, but reasonable) 3) Effect on recall of text (prose) 4) Effect on recall in advertisements 5) Distance at which text of a given size becomes readable There's also softer stuff along the lines of "does it make you feel warm and fuzzy", and you can still design experiments for that type of thing too. So, I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you went you say you can't measure any of this.

by madair 17y ago

DrJokepu 17y ago

Especially since Arial wasn't commissioned by Microsoft, it was designed in 1982 by Patricia Saunders and Robin Nicholas, commissioned by IBM for their laser printers. It was originally called Sonoran San Serif. Microsoft later shipped it with Windows 3.1.

madair 17y ago
Thanks for catching my error in the history.

jacobmorse 17y ago

It isn't so much an issue of taste (or sentiment) as much as it is an issue of the design itself. Typography is about math/geometry as much as it is about taste. Helvetica was designed first, meticulously. Arial came later, resembling Helvetica, but breaking many typographic rules. I'm a designer and I'm not particularly (at least not inordinately) impassioned about things like this, but I do find it important to recognize the difference between _design_ and art. It's often less about subjective preferences and more about purposeful/thoughtful solutions—in this case, what constitutes acceptable typography.

DrJokepu 17y ago
Note that Arial is not based on Helvetica, it is more like a cousin of Helvetica. Arial's ancestor is Grotesque 215. There's an excellent article about that here: http://www.ms-studio.com/articlesarialsid.html http://www.ms-studio.com/articlesarialsid.html
madair 17y ago
I agree with you that this is design, often akin to industrial design more than art, which could also be described as art meets practical considerations or too narrowly, art meets commerce. And that's why I'm casting a wide net in my remarks by bringing up pixel alignment considerations, as well as licensing and other considerations. These are critical considerations to typography in practice. For example the politics and business constraints surrounding the development, licensing, and use of Helvetica in the 90's are way more complex than simply saying, "Microsoft didn't want to pay for Helvetica", which is how many designers put it. These complaints about licensing also, by the way, give away many of their visceral emotion-based reactions to Arial, rather than objective design purity. Clearly every party is affected in some way by the commerce of design, which often seems to inform designer's reactions too, especially when the licensing question is over-simplified.

diiq 17y ago

Both fonts fulfill the purpose for which they were designed. Helvetica was built to live in a gridded world: the horizons and verticals of Swiss modernity (look again at R and see how space-consuming it is). Arial was built to look like Grotesque 215, which is what swiss designers were using before Helvetica. Arial is supposed to be more human (read: humanist), and is for on-screen and on-paper --- not signage. Designers prefer Helvetica because it is built to be used by designers; any combination of letters will pack neatly in space, both because of the letterforms themselves and the superior kerning. Arial is meant to be used for less important, less permanent documents. It is more casual, and setting a whole page of text in it does not seem cold or callous.

kscaldef 17y ago
All of which avoids the original question: "Does anyone know of reputable research and blind tests that back up the common designer sentiment against Arial?"
- diiq 17y ago
  Mu. There can be no such thing. Both fonts accomplish a purpose. Many like one because they feel it is easier to design with. Any reputable designer will instantly recognize both. They are two of the most used fonts in the world. There is no way to perform a blind test. The closest thing to reputable researchers in design are designers. They spend their lives experimenting with fonts, and most prefer to use the one to the other. Some of them are following popular opinion mindlessly. Many aren't. Until some metric can be made for good design (fat chance. Also, note that readability is not the only important piece of this puzzle) no journal-worthy piece of science is going to come forward.
  - kscaldef 17y ago
    > Any reputable designer will instantly recognize both No one is asking about "reputable designers". The tiny minority of people who can recognize hundreds of fonts at a glance are not interesting when it comes to this question. There are certainly some objective metrics you can consider. Some that very quickly come to my mind: 1) Effect on reading speed 2) Effect on reading "endurance" (a little harder to define, but reasonable) 3) Effect on recall of text (prose) 4) Effect on recall in advertisements 5) Distance at which text of a given size becomes readable There's also softer stuff along the lines of "does it make you feel warm and fuzzy", and you can still design experiments for that type of thing too. So, I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you went you say you can't measure any of this.