Re: Arial vs. Helvetica.
- Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 16:34:00 +0100
- From: Joe <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Arial vs. Helvetica.
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 06:26:13 -0700
> I want to specify a variable pitch font in a wiki. The font should be
> widely available and acceptable to commonly used browsers.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arial explains, "It [Arial] was created
> to be metrically identical to the popular typeface Helvetica, with
> all character widths identical, so that a document designed in
> Helvetica could be displayed and printed correctly without having to
> pay for a Helvetica license." That suggests that Arial is a good
> choice. Conversely, font substitution appears to be handled well in
> many contexts and licensing might no longer be a concern.
> What is the conclusion. Should I specify, Arial or Helvetica or
> something else?
Does your wiki software require one specific named font, without
allowing you to tweak the CSS for it if you wish? Does it not have a
'sans-serif' value available, which will call for a browser to use its
default sans-serif font?
If you can customise the CSS for the text elements, you can specify
multiple font families in order of preference
e.g. font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
Incidentally, serifs were invented to make blocks of text easier to
read, so Times or similar would be a better choice for paragraphs, with
a sans-serif font more suited to bold headings. Newspaper sites (not
surprisingly including The Times) use serif fonts.