Verdana VS Arial
- Started
- Last post
- 13 Responses
- rabattski0
enjine, mishawaka is standard mac, at least standard mac os 9. dunno about classic but it probably is. but if you don't have a mac you can get mishawaka here, it's not named mishawaka but it's damn close:
- robotron3k0
frankly i am un-moved by either.
- Pixter0
font-family: Verdana, Tahoma, Helvetica;
- davey_g0
Fugged, I totally agree. If I had to choose, it would definitely be Verdana.
So, my problem is when Verdana is used for print. I hate it...even though it's supposed to be one of the most legible typefaces out there.
- JamesEngage0
i like geneva
in the springtime
- tomkat0
I like the not-aliased verdana.
- Raind0g0
yup.
- fugged0
i'm assuming by not-aliased, you mean aliased (not smoothed)
- tkmeister0
i like verdana better than arial on web use, but that's pretty much all i can say about that.
- rabattski0
reminds me of the very first praystation site. all arial. some comment mr. davis had on his site was in the line of "if you don't know type than just use arial". looked good though. verdana is not bad as well. but to say that verdana is better? dunno, have the same feeling about those two. personally i like mishawaka more as a system font. unfortunately that's not standard on pc's.
- ian000
Arial is just a varriation of helvetica. It was designed to display better on screens. You may not like Helvetica but you can't deny it's imporatnce to type design. It was one of the first widely available sans-serifs.
here is a relatively interesting article: http://www.ms-studio.com/article…
- enjine0
mishawaka?
hook it up?
- xau0
Either one. They are too similar to fret over. I do agree that Verdana looks slightly better aliased, but it invokes little to no emotional response from me (and I'm pretty damned emotional).