|
Hong Kong9152 Posts
Helvetica for the Web
Web designers everywhere, please take heed:
Helvetica is completely inappropriate for use as a body typeface for the Web.
While it is important to recognize that Helvetica is superior to Arial in just about any other production usage type, the lack of font hinting and kerning control in the web environment makes it unsuitable for use. In fact, calling
font-family: "HelveticaNeue-Light",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;
makes one’s design uniquely unusable and ugly to the exact people who would find it most annoying and abhorrent: your fellow designers.
Please stop doing this, just call Arial or a suitable Google web font.
+ Show Spoiler [Examples] +with helvetica ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cfVb9jN.png) with arial ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/L0bDG6i.png)
PS: This applies to any non-standard design typeface, not just Helvetica. I've seen websites do fun things like call Univers and FF DIN. The results were, predictably, horrendous.
 
|
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
What's your opinion on Trebuchet, Lucida and Tahoma then?
|
Hong Kong9152 Posts
|
|
|
Hong Kong9152 Posts
|
LOOOOL, I was just about do say something about comic sans. Also, I would agree with ya, I used helvetica in my last personal site design, and the results were less than I'd hoped for from the presentational aspect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what about calibri? That's my personal favorite
|
Hong Kong9152 Posts
keep in mind, these have to be good for the web. im not just talking about general design. I dont think those are standard installed on everyone's computers.
|
On June 04 2013 10:29 itsjustatank wrote:keep in mind, these have to be good for the web. im not just talking about general design. I dont think those are standard installed on everyone's computers.
But Helvetica is just a bad font overall, web or not; I wouldn't even call it a "web font". The older web fonts like Verdana and Georgia, although widely installed, were created for a time where antialiasing was non-existing or primitive.
Given web font technologies (Google Font Directory, Typekit, etc.) local installation is no longer a requirement. You only need the publisher to be the licensee.
|
Canada5155 Posts
The problem here is actually not the font but the way browsers render it.
The image you used as an example... I can bet it was Chrome. Terrible awful horrible aliasing on web fonts (not just google web fonts, I'm talking @font-face on the whole).
Helvetica is fine for the purpose of that image. It's large display sized text and a single line subtitle.
|
Canada5155 Posts
Moral of the story: Use Firefox.
|
Hong Kong9152 Posts
When a font choice disables usability for a significant amount of users when a common font that is interchangeable for it on the web is an option, it just shouldn't be used.
The number of people who use Chrome, have Helvetica installed, and use Flickr has to be a significant amount of people.
|
I have a noob question and I'd love an answer if someone is patient enough to try.
I find this sort of thing interesting. How does someone know (before trial and error) which fonts look good on the web and which do not? If I, as a complete noob, wanted to make a clean, fresh design on a website, how would I know not to use Helvetica or Univers or FF DIN as mentioned above?
Do web browsers just inherently suck at "hinting" (I've no idea what that is) or kerning (I know that one, I think) and therefore can only render "web fonts" that are designed specifically for them?
Also, this comes to mind while I'm asking people in the know: Why is League Gothic "free" but you're not allowed to put it on a site without paying?
OK, that's three questions. I apologize. Would love to know the answers, though!
|
Canada5155 Posts
On June 04 2013 11:17 itsjustatank wrote:
When a font choice disables usability for a significant amount of users when a common font that is interchangeable for it on the web is an option, it just shouldn't be used.
The number of people who use Chrome, have Helvetica installed, and use Flickr has to be a significant amount of people.
Ya this is why we're (trying to) limit our webfont usage in news. I'm not saying it justifies its use, but I'm saying that the problem isn't so much the font itself but rather the support for it.
|
Hong Kong9152 Posts
On June 04 2013 11:17 Mjolnir wrote:I have a noob question and I'd love an answer if someone is patient enough to try. I find this sort of thing interesting. How does someone know (before trial and error) which fonts look good on the web and which do not? If I, as a complete noob, wanted to make a clean, fresh design on a website, how would I know not to use Helvetica or Univers or FF DIN as mentioned above? Do web browsers just inherently suck at "hinting" (I've no idea what that is) or kerning (I know that one, I think) and therefore can only render "web fonts" that are designed specifically for them? Also, this comes to mind while I'm asking people in the know: Why is League Gothic "free" but you're not allowed to put it on a site without paying? OK, that's three questions. I apologize. Would love to know the answers, though!
- Use one of these or a Google Web Font
God help you if you choose Comic Sans or Impact. - Browsers just don't have the typography tools that many of the core design fonts require to be acceptable for use in a production.
- As far as I know, League Gothic is an open source font without any such restriction on use.
On June 04 2013 11:24 HawaiianPig wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 11:17 itsjustatank wrote:
When a font choice disables usability for a significant amount of users when a common font that is interchangeable for it on the web is an option, it just shouldn't be used.
The number of people who use Chrome, have Helvetica installed, and use Flickr has to be a significant amount of people. Ya this is why we're (trying to) limit our webfont usage in news. I'm not saying it justifies its use, but I'm saying that the problem isn't so much the font itself but rather the support for it.
Yeah, I understand. It's just that I get the feeling that the only reason why Helvetica and other fonts like these are being called is as an afterthought by the designer: "Oh, us superior design people can use these fonts instead!" Problem is it can break a site inadvertently if the conditions are met, and that is bad.
Google Web Fonts are different as they are actively being sought out and used as a design choice on the web, I feel.
|
everyone should just stick with times new roman font 12 :/ avoid any trouble
|
On June 04 2013 11:27 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 11:17 Mjolnir wrote:I have a noob question and I'd love an answer if someone is patient enough to try. I find this sort of thing interesting. How does someone know (before trial and error) which fonts look good on the web and which do not? If I, as a complete noob, wanted to make a clean, fresh design on a website, how would I know not to use Helvetica or Univers or FF DIN as mentioned above? Do web browsers just inherently suck at "hinting" (I've no idea what that is) or kerning (I know that one, I think) and therefore can only render "web fonts" that are designed specifically for them? Also, this comes to mind while I'm asking people in the know: Why is League Gothic "free" but you're not allowed to put it on a site without paying? OK, that's three questions. I apologize. Would love to know the answers, though! - Use one of these or a Google Web Font
God help you if you choose Comic Sans or Impact. - Browsers just don't have the typography tools that many of the core design fonts require to be acceptable for use in a production.
- As far as I know, League Gothic is an open source font without any such restriction on use.
Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 11:24 HawaiianPig wrote:On June 04 2013 11:17 itsjustatank wrote:
When a font choice disables usability for a significant amount of users when a common font that is interchangeable for it on the web is an option, it just shouldn't be used.
The number of people who use Chrome, have Helvetica installed, and use Flickr has to be a significant amount of people. Ya this is why we're (trying to) limit our webfont usage in news. I'm not saying it justifies its use, but I'm saying that the problem isn't so much the font itself but rather the support for it. Yeah, I understand. It's just that I get the feeling that the only reason why Helvetica and other fonts like these are being called is as an afterthought by the designer: "Oh, us superior design people can use these fonts instead!" Problem is it can break a site inadvertently if the conditions are met, and that is bad. Google Web Fonts are different as they are actively being sought out and used as a design choice on the web, I feel.
1. I promise not to use Comic Sans, Impact, or Papyrus.
2. Thanks.
3. Tried to use it, it's through typekit. They wanted cash. Maybe I'm doing something wrong.
Thanks for the answers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vGihJ8D.jpg)
