I went with work to a lecture on Thursday, given by typographer Bruno Maag from Dalton Maag. It was a really interesting talk, and we loved his passion for type and form. During the talk an interesting topic came up surrounding Arial and Helvetica. There's a perception that Arial is easy to read, and is often the type of choice for clients, demanding their work should be produced in 12pt Arial to optimise readability, especially for people who are visually impaired. I've always known this to be tosh, and it was good to hear world renowned typographer Bruno Maag back this up.
This article is actually pointless as I'm guessing most will agree, so it's preaching to the converted. But as we all know, both Arial and Helvetica is regimentally designed. It's very consistent. Visually impaired people can often get confused when reading large amounts of Arial and Helvetica. For example, the letters e, o and c. The shapes are practically the same, due to the open counters being very 'clawed' in. The letters r and n also confuse as many start to join them to become a m.
I don't think designers generally like using Arial, but I do get annoyed when clients (mostly councils, government organisations etc...) try to enforce this typeface, saying it helps visually impaired people when it really doesn't. Rant over.
and what was your point?
Posted by: typeguy | October 19, 2009 at 14:46
That Arial shouldn't be used as body copy, as most people find it difficult to read, let alone people who are visually impaired. Councils etc should seek to address their misguided policies. Ok?
Posted by: Steve Leard | October 19, 2009 at 14:51
Might wanna take a look at the kerning between the ‘n’ and the ‘m’ buddy
Posted by: Norman | October 19, 2009 at 19:29