Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

So you think you can tell Arial from Helvetica?

ironicsans.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 184 posts

Re: So you think you can tell Arial from Helvetica?

#151

Post by Kluny »

Trezoid wrote: post #113
aidos wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it is more elegant, but if you don't want cross browser, cross platform rendering issues you'll stick with Arial.

No, you should stick with verdana. It's fully cross-platform, designed from the start to be a screen font, and generally looks better. Alternatively, @font-face is supported by just about everything at this point, opening up the opportunity to use much better fonts, like open sans (also, helvetica is a print font. It doesn't work for body copy at the sizes commonly used for screen text.)

I too am a fan of Verdana.

Re: So you think you can tell Arial from Helvetica?

#152

Post by Volpe »

timr wrote: post #115
rquantz wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that is what he's trying to say. You don't use Arial because it terminates at right angles, you use it because it feels different.

You use it because it's the only option you have under Windows.

What about custom fonts? They work on windows too...

Re: So you think you can tell Arial from Helvetica?

#155

Post by sjwright »

jsilence wrote: post #109

Thank you, now you have ruined Arial for me. Before this test I considered the differences negligible, without really knowing what the differences are. Now I consider Helvetica much more elegant and incisive.

Helvetica is indeed the better font, but this is an unfair example because the Arial alternatives were poorly kerned, whereas the logos were (with few exceptions) expertly kerned.

Re: So you think you can tell Arial from Helvetica?

#156

Post by notJim »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #141
notJim wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, just put sans-serif. Windows users get arial, os x users get helvetica, Linux users get whatever. Everybody wins.

No, this is horrible advice. The difference in the fonts will make your site look completely different to people using different OSes.

No it won't, the difference between Helvetica and Arial at small sizes is barely noticeable. Furthermore, most Windows users won't have Helvetica anyway, and if they do, it looks totally broken.

The appearance does matter more for display text (logos, headings, etc.), but you're using font-face for those anyway.

Re: So you think you can tell Arial from Helvetica?

#158

Post by prawn »

Trezoid wrote: post #113
aidos wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it is more elegant, but if you don't want cross browser, cross platform rendering issues you'll stick with Arial.

No, you should stick with verdana. It's fully cross-platform, designed from the start to be a screen font, and generally looks better. Alternatively, @font-face is supported by just about everything at this point, opening up the opportunity to use much better fonts, like open sans (also, helvetica is a print font. It doesn't work for body copy at the sizes commonly used for screen text.)

Verdana is wide enough that it brings problems trying to fit links within a horizontal nav bar.

Re: So you think you can tell Arial from Helvetica?

#159

Post by pippy »

sjwright wrote: post #155
jsilence wrote: post #109

Thank you, now you have ruined Arial for me. Before this test I considered the differences negligible, without really knowing what the differences are. Now I consider Helvetica much more elegant and incisive.

Helvetica is indeed the better font, but this is an unfair example because the Arial alternatives were poorly kerned, whereas the logos were (with few exceptions) expertly kerned.

You're also limited to one weight with web safe Ariel, which I noticed most of those logos had non standard weights.
Post reply on HN