- #DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HELVETICA NOW AND NEUE MAC OSX#
- #DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HELVETICA NOW AND NEUE WINDOWS#
#DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HELVETICA NOW AND NEUE MAC OSX#
In fact all Mac OSX versions after 10.4 had it.
#DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HELVETICA NOW AND NEUE WINDOWS#
It was was bundled with MS Office, Windows and IE. Released in 1996, it is available on 99.10% of Macs, 99.84% of Windows Machine and 67.91% of Linux Machines. Technically, these fonts were made for web and have amazing readability. But fortunately they've done a decent job there. So Microsoft rules the font-availability game. Unfortunately, Windows is more popular (household) Operating System than MacOS or *nix based systems. And if you're betting on Helvetica - you're already in peril with availability issues. If you're dropping IE6/7/8 support than you're anyway ignoring a much bigger market than you'd ignore if you ditched Arial. Arial is shit and Helvetica hardly works as good on web. Justin Bieber can never be compared to Tony Bennett - he is just not that good technically no matter what popular taste is. (Gulp!) Well however much I'd like to say "to each his own" - still there are good things from mad. So they are the safest thing to do! Different x-height can break your layout! It's easy to work with defaults no matter how bad they are.
They are very much same in terms of x-height and other measurements. Safe bet and cross-platform compatibility - Arial was created in image of Helvetica.Arial is available almost everywhere (~99% Macs and Windows machines have it). Second reason, which makes most sense, is availability.People just don't care/know about design - let alone typography.
Gmail also does a great job of typesetting in Arial: GitHub uses Helvetica but on most Windows machines it defaults to Arial and they pull it off very nicely:Įxcept some parts which can be much better with a different typeface: Some popular sites that use Arial and Helvetica nicely: But same amount of effort will yield much better results in other typefaces. Arial.īut there are sites and designers who have managed to make even Arial work for them. It's just a bad copy of Helvetica - a really bad one. ArialĪrial is notorious amoung designers as Microsoft's bastard son (rip-off) of Helvetica. And availability is a big problem on Windows. It is much better than bare Helvetica but again it is not as great as many other typefaces crafted for web. But please do us a favour, don't use it on the web. In fact, most of the brand identities I've created are typeset in Helvetica. It's brilliant for print world, brand identities and maybe even headlines. Just keep reading and you will see the difference. Here is a comparison between Helvetica and Lucida Grande (My favorite typeface). That's something that you cannot do for every word you ever wrote on web. Helvetica almost always requires custom kerning to bring out the best. And all that is well-deserved! Helvetica is one of the best typefaces ever created and is still as relevant as it was when it was created.īut it is a very bad choice for web - especially when you have a paragraphs / chunks of text to typeset. Let me expand on merits and demerits of these defaults: Helveticaįilms have been made and songs are sung in name of Helvetica. Often, no thought is given to design of the site, let alone typography. Some people actually have a reason to use them but most use it mindlessly - just because everyone else does. And Helvetica looks ugly without proper kerning and Arial is just an ugly bastard son of Helvetica. Arial and Helvetica suck on web and for paragraphs of text - they are unreadable (as compared to many other typefaces created specifically for web). Arial and Helvetica are the default font stack for most browsers and for most of the websites.
0 kommentar(er)
