Differences Between Arial And Helvetic Normal, And Typefaces
Super Normal, from a conceptual point of view, leans on an intentional and extraordinary ambivalence (Fukasawa & Morrison, 2012, p.1). Specifically, based on the terminology, it could be taken both as an oxymoron that ‘super’ opposes ‘normal’, means ‘beyond’; or a concept of absolute superlative in which the Super Normal determines the superlative of ‘normal’ to its greatest degree in its ontological form. Although the etymology of what is considered to be ‘normal’ relates to ‘ordinary’ with no features, in the context of what Fukusawa and Morrison defined, Super Normal are not ‘normal’ any more by making them so ‘normal’. They become both ‘normal’ and ‘exceptional’, pushing the norm to the boundaries of the possible, and introjecting the paradoxical
…show more content…
They both are sans-serif typefaces that are universally embraced by different communication platforms. At first glance, they seem extremely similar. When Arial was released in 1982, it was seen as a copy of Helvetica of 1957. But if designers examine the characters in each typeface closely, the differences between them become apparent. Mark Simonson (2001), an American graphic designer, produced an analysis of this two typefaces, showing how much more refined Helvetica than that of Arial. The primary difference is the treatments of endings between the two. While Helvetica is vertically cut, Arial is slightly angled. For instance, the tail of the ‘a’ is gently curved in Helvetica, as is the first connection of the bowl to the stem, but not in Arial. Similarly, the top of the ‘t’ and the ends of the strokes in the ‘C’ and ‘S’ are perfectly horizontal in the former, but slightly angled in the latter. In my mind, even though the distinguishing details are so tiny that cannot be noticed unless they are scrutinized magnified versions as Simonson has done. Yet it is these subtleties that constitute Helvetica a finer example of design than Arial, especially for professionals. Functionally the two types are roughly equal, both are admirable clear, but aesthetically Helvetica is
They both are sans-serif typefaces that are universally embraced by different communication platforms. At first glance, they seem extremely similar. When Arial was released in 1982, it was seen as a copy of Helvetica of 1957. But if designers examine the characters in each typeface closely, the differences between them become apparent. Mark Simonson (2001), an American graphic designer, produced an analysis of this two typefaces, showing how much more refined Helvetica than that of Arial. The primary difference is the treatments of endings between the two. While Helvetica is vertically cut, Arial is slightly angled. For instance, the tail of the ‘a’ is gently curved in Helvetica, as is the first connection of the bowl to the stem, but not in Arial. Similarly, the top of the ‘t’ and the ends of the strokes in the ‘C’ and ‘S’ are perfectly horizontal in the former, but slightly angled in the latter. In my mind, even though the distinguishing details are so tiny that cannot be noticed unless they are scrutinized magnified versions as Simonson has done. Yet it is these subtleties that constitute Helvetica a finer example of design than Arial, especially for professionals. Functionally the two types are roughly equal, both are admirable clear, but aesthetically Helvetica is