A note about font families, weights, and variants For comparison, it is typical in a typographic system for a magazine to use 10–15 or more different weight and width combinations throughout the publication - giving a much wider range of styles than currently typical on the web (or indeed practical for performance reasons alone). This allows for common typographic techniques such as setting different size headings in different weights for better readability at each size or using a slightly narrower width for data-dense displays. The advantage in choosing the variable font is that you have access to the entire range of weights, widths, and styles available, rather than being constrained to only the few that you previously would have loaded separately. That file would be larger than a single font, but in most cases smaller or about the same size as the 4 you might load for body copy. Merely stating what works for me, and (what I believe) works in general.With a variable font, all of those permutations can be contained in a single file. With Arial and Helvetica I think that’s at 16px, but for Open Sans, which looks like it’s smaller in general, I just suggest 20px.īy no means I claim I’m an expert on fonts. Starting from 20px and up, it’s where it becomes “large enough” to be “comfortable” to read. In the grand scheme of things, it’s a lot more complicated. Maybe his site is aimed at children? Either way, it’s also safe to say that Arial and Helvetica are fairly “neutral” fonts, which is why I said that. I think it’s safe to say that Comic Sans is one of those fonts that’s generally accepted as ugly/wrong/bad, so I see your point, but then still, I probably would’ve said the same. What if Mib70 suggested to use Comic Sans? Would you then agree with your answer? Text makes up majority of websites that is why typography is important, even more so for minimal designs. I have to disagree with this, respectfully of course. There are other contributing factors that can in fact be blamed on the typeface which is why so many in Google’s library are horrendous. Since this happens with a lot of fonts (most custom, non-standard fonts), this is a Chrome/Windows issue and nothing the font itself can be blamed for. Google fonts downside 1: font rendering on Chrome (Windows only) can be a bit bad. Keep in mind that Neue Helvetica is an improvement to Helvetica.
“But he’s talking about Neue Helvetica”, you might say. This makes it appealing for big, graphic stuff like headlines, posters, and logos, but does not make it a great text or UI face.
Neue Helvetica is known for its strict uniformity. It has to do with weight, spacing, openness of letterforms, and most importantly rhythm. Some typefaces are simply not optimal for reading at small sizes, regardless of render quality or substrate. you overestimate the abilities of a Retina display. I’ve posted this quote before so here it is again (this is in reply to another person):
In regards to Helvetica, it certainly can be. have to disagree with this, respectfully of course. Do you think its a good font to use in websites? – you think it looks good and fits your site, then by all means use it.