4 ms·

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

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.

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.