[IxDA Discuss] Arial vs Vernada?

[Andrei Herasimchuk]

On Jan 7, 2008, at 8:43 AM, Benoît Meunier wrote:

> For a better reading experience: *Arial or Verdana?*

Arial is a bastardized version of Helvetica created because those in  
charge of the operating system didn't want to pay the license fee  
that would be required to put a proper font on their computer. (Both  
Apple and Microsoft are guilty of this.) My general preference for  
specifying the fonts for anything on a web site is generally:  
Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Sans Serif. In that order.

Even as a bastardized version, Arial is still more readable and  
flexible for web projects that require heavy amounts of copy.

There's a long history behind Tahoma and Verdana that I won't go  
into. You can Google that. But Tahoma was made to give Windows95 a  
new look and feel for the screen, back when screen resolutions and  
such were much lower than they are today. (At the time, Apple had  
Chicago and Espy, and Microsoft was looking to create their own  
aesthetic to compete.) Tahoma was basically designed for 9px, 10px,  
11px and 12x sizes only. (Maybe 13px as well, I forget off the top of  
my head.) And by designed, I mean pixel for pixel design, not  
outlines and curves like PostScript or TrueType fonts. It was hinted  
specifically for screen pixels at those specific sizes.

Verdana was created as a variation of Tahoma for web work because  
Microsoft seemed to want the same aesthetic but needed a font that  
could be read with dense body copy. The web was just booming at that  
time and Tahoma looks like junk when used as body copy because it was  
designed mostly to be labels for dialog boxes. It has a much too wide  
feel for long stretches of copy. As such, Verdana is certainly more  
readable as body copy, but again, it was designed for certain small  
screen sizes, 9px through 12px. Try using Verdana as a 20px headline  
and it looks like crap.

So, if you all you care about is body copy set specifically at 10px  
or 11px, then Verdana is fine. The moment you want to use it for  
headlines and such, you're out of luck and will need to specify a  
different headline font. I tend to specify Helvetiva Neue and Arial  
so I don't have to worry about the issue. Arial is tolerable and with  
ClearType turned on with bigger screens, in my opinion it looks far  
better than Verdana ever will.

> - If there any studies or facts about that?

You don't use studies or "facts" to choose a typeface. That would be  
like using a study that claims red is always the best color to use  
for company backgrounds.

-- 
Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world

e. andrei at involutionstudios.com
c. +1 408 306 6422