It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
J. Bridges said:
Which typeface is better: Helvetica or Akzidenz Grotesk?
James Puckett said:
We don’t have to choose. Arial combines the best of both worlds.
John Hudson said:
Helvetica is the "technically flawless" one.Which Helvetica?
Ray Larabie said:
Sorry to go off an an Arial rant, but it's sort of relevant...maybe? I think Arial Nova is beautiful.
John Hudson said:
No, that would be Univers. Helvetica wasn’t even the culmination of its own line: Helvetica Neue was produced to iron out the quirks and inconsistencies of Helvetica and extend it to a greater range of weights and widths to be more like ... Univers.
jeremy tribby said:
Helvetica is more useful, having the greater available range of styles.
But by the same token, it’s easier to go wrong with Helvetica.
My point is: Arial is worthy of respect and I think @James Puckett was correct.
Monowidth means fixed width, as per typewriter.
I wouldn't set the poster for "Fear and loathing in Las Vegas" in Helvetica, nor are the illustrations for the book in a clean and solid Victorian style.
I remember that I collected German bandee dessine of Asterix as a kid. They were all set in a somewhat inappropriate Helvetica (I think it was Helvetica), which may be legible but it was not a comic book font.
The "best" typeface for any project is the most appropriate for its style.
The design of a typeface might have standalone appeal, but when divorced from the context of actual use, that appeal is a bit superficial. I've used Akzidenz and Helvetica in many projects over the years. Despite their similarities, both possess separate personalities that lend themselves to solving different design problems.
The two typefaces aren't interchangeable, and which is better depends on the job at hand. Helvetica might be a bit more refined and available in many versions. However, when Akzidenz is the best fit for the job, none of Helvetica's other attributes matter.