Distinguishing Helvetica from Neue Helvetica
tobias b koehler
I have installed both Helvetica and Neue Helvetica on my system, I have
written text in various sizes in both and printed it out, and I still
cannot tell the difference when looking at a text. Only the spacing is
slightly different.
Is there anyone who could tell, or explain, the difference between the two?
toby
vista bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More profits for the vendors? <g>
Bill
Thane
"vista bill" <BillsR...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:97e62538-5df4-4b9d...@r28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill
Aside from the minor differences in metrics, there are some very, very minor
adjustments to the glyphs. For example, take a "q" from each font in a
different color and lay one over the other at a large size or zoomed in on
screen and you will see the slight difference in the bowls. Personally, I am
indifferent to the changes, but I suppose there are those with a finer sense
of design than I who may appreciate the revisions.
Thane
Character
Here's a description that might help (or might not)
http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/adobe/helvetica-neue/
Armadillo
> Aside from the minor differences in metrics, there are some very, very minor
> adjustments to the glyphs. For example, take a "q" from each font in a
> different color and lay one over the other at a large size or zoomed in on
> screen and you will see the slight difference in the bowls. Personally, I am
> indifferent to the changes, but I suppose there are those with a finer sense
> of design than I who may appreciate the revisions.
There are dozens of Helvetica versions.
I just compared two version Type1 Helvetica by Adobe and OpenType Helvetiva Neue by Linotype.
There are changes in glyphs but they are not minor. A few I noticed immediately using the text above was.
- 'm' is wider in HN, in H it is too narrow and dark.
- 'f' has taller ascender in HN
- 't' has taller ascender and tha shape is different.
- 'o' is much more round in HN
Spacing is much better in HN therefore the texture of HN as body text is more even than texture of H which has dark too tight spots due to bad spacing and especially uneven color of characters.
***
A few years ago I made a layout of a book about a record label which had its heyday in 70s. Then about only typefaces available in printing houses were Times and Helvetica. So as a tribute to designers of that age I decided to use Times and Helvetica but soon noticed I have to cheat a bit and used Times Ten and Helvetica Neue. Spacing of Helvetica is so bad that I could not use it even in one line captions.
Jukka
tobias b koehler
> There are dozens of Helvetica versions.
Yes, and it seems that some are closer to "Neue Helvetica" than others ....
> Spacing is much better in HN therefore the texture of HN as body text is more even than texture of H which has dark too tight spots due to bad spacing and especially uneven color of characters.
This could be because Helvetica was originally intended as a display
typeface, not for body text, when it came out in the 1950s?
Apparently Lufthansa uses yet another version of Helvetica as a
corporate typeface, but again the changes appear to be very subtle.
I'm frequently struggling with the shortcomings of Helvetica when trying
to decipher numbers of Austrian railway rolling stock from a great
distance, or in blurred photos. Due to their rounded shape, the "6" and
"9" can be mixed up with each other or with "8" or "0". That's the
problem when you want to have horizontal terminals on almost all rounded
strokes - Frutiger is much better in that respect with its more "open"
shapes ....
Armadillo
>> Spacing is much better in HN therefore the texture of HN as body text is more even than texture of H which has dark too tight spots due to bad spacing and especially uneven color of characters.
>
> This could be because Helvetica was originally intended as a display
> typeface, not for body text, when it came out in the 1950s?
As far as spacing goes the spacing od Helvetica is far too tight and uneven. In signs text has to be spaced more losely than in body text.
Here in Helsinki Metro sign typography is made by a company spezializing in (swiss) sign design. All the Helvetica texts are spaced too tight and the only reason they are about legible is they are big enough. (Also there is a digital sign system that use special LCD grid to form characters and it has absolutely nothing to do with letter shapes.)
http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/hel/hel-kalasatama.htm
Jukka
tobias b koehler
> As far as spacing goes the spacing od Helvetica is far too tight and uneven.
> In signs text has to be spaced more losely than in body text.
The Swiss railways created a Helvetica variant in 1981 for signing in
stations.
http://railfaneurope.net/pix/ch/SBB_CFF_FFS/station/Bellinzona/bellinzona_16sept2000_018.jpg
http://railfaneurope.net/pix/ch/SBB_CFF_FFS/station/Goldach/20030510_Goldach_11.jpg
http://railfaneurope.net/pix/ch/SBB_CFF_FFS/station/Le_Locle/20020808_LeLocle_187.jpg
http://railfaneurope.net/pix/ch/SBB_CFF_FFS/station/Muensterlingen/muensterlingen-scherzingen01.jpg
http://railfaneurope.net/pix/ch/SBB_CFF_FFS/station/Romanshorn/20020807_romanshorn_45.jpg
http://railfaneurope.net/pix/ch/SBB_CFF_FFS/station/Solothurn/20030511_Solothurn_28.jpg
http://railfaneurope.net/pix/ch/SBB_CFF_FFS/station/Schloss_Laufen_am_Rheinfall/Rheinfall_Zwitserland_30-07-2007_51.jpg
Even though it resembles Helvetica at first sight it's a pretty
substantial modification of spacing, ascenders and a good number of
lettershapes.
Unfortunately (or fortunately for modellers who can easily get Helvetica
but not the SBB house typeface) they aren't so consequent in vehicle
inscriptions, where it's sometimes mixed with regular or "Neue" Helvetica.
Armadillo
> Even though it resembles Helvetica at first sight it's a pretty
> substantial modification of spacing, ascenders and a good number of
> lettershapes.
> Unfortunately (or fortunately for modellers who can easily get Helvetica
> but not the SBB house typeface) they aren't so consequent in vehicle
> inscriptions, where it's sometimes mixed with regular or "Neue" Helvetica.
Thank you for the information.
So it seems that the poor spacing appears here too. The letter shapes are ok but the spacing is horrid and way too tight, for example this Solothurn. Especially the spacing of 'S' and 'o'.
http://railfaneurope.net/pix/ch/SBB_CFF_FFS/station/Solothurn/20030511_Solothurn_28.jpg
In this size it is readable but if you scale it for example 50% charactres begin to form a unreadable lump. Not to mention you have to read it from moving train.
Jukka
tobias b koehler
> So it seems that the poor spacing appears here too. The letter shapes are ok but the spacing is horrid and way too tight, for example this Solothurn. Especially the spacing of 'S' and 'o'.
That's right. Spacing is also a bit inconsistent on some signs, perhaps
because (some of) the signs are more or less "handmade" and each
signmaker had own ideas of spacing/kerning ....
The problem with German signs is that they get smaller and smaller with
each generation. Also not using bold but "regular" print, a different
"heavily modified Helvetica" ....
http://railfaneurope.net/pix/de/station/Berlin/Ostbahnhof-Hbf/IMG_2971.jpg
It has often been criticized that the new signs are hard to see from
moving trains (but this is not a purely typographical question; large
signs placed at a greater distance from the track are of course easier
to see than small signs directly in front of the window).
The Austrian system from 1976 also uses rather small signs ....
http://railfaneurope.net/pix/at/station/Hieflau/20030322_Hieflau_13.jpg
Due to the date of creation this can't be "Neue" Helvetica.
A few years ago new signs were introduced, with Frutiger Next ...
http://railfaneurope.net/pix/at/station/Wien/Geiselbergstrasse/IMG_2102.jpg
A bit larger text than previously, bold text would be even better to
recognize.
The pictograms and directions on the bottom of the sign are too small
and hard to decipher for many (you have to get close to the sign to see
anything).
You are right, the requirements for such signs (short words that have to
be recognized quickly) are different from those for body text. I believe
before introducing any signing system they should make tests: Show
pictures of signs (blurred, at an angle, moving) for split seconds to
people and compare which system gets recognized best ....
Armadillo
> You are right, the requirements for such signs (short words that have to
> be recognized quickly) are different from those for body text. I believe
> before introducing any signing system they should make tests: Show
> pictures of signs (blurred, at an angle, moving) for split seconds to
> people and compare which system gets recognized best ....
Tests have been made but it seems that these guys have missed them all. As memory serves a designer from the company responsible for Helsinki metro signs gave us a lecture about sign design when I was a student. There were slides about test including blurred text but they may have been from a Swiss test, not their own.
Just about every book about typography that have something about signs (posters, neon signs, banners, exhibition displays...) say that big text need generous spacing.
Jukka