Talk:Arial

Pronunciation

According to the originator the correct pronunciation is "air-ree-al". Another accurate pronunciation for the word is "Ah-rye-al".

Etymology of the Name?

Anyone know it? 205.157.110.11 01:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably influenced by "Ariel" (old alternative name of Jerusalem, and name of a spirit in Shakespeare's Tempest) and "Aerial", I would assume... AnonMoos (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the name started as "variant" and was shortened;

It could relate to Welsh "arian" - "silver", ie. 2nd to the gold standard Helvetica or ...

Ariel is a given name, cf. Nicholas' typeface Ysobel (also Sobel filter)??

It could relate to areal, because it covers the same area as Helvetica; 89.204.138.183 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formality Opinion

I always thought about the "Helevetica vs. Arial" conflict like this: Arial is for informal writing like e-mails, and helevetica is for more formal writing, like on a business letter. But since arial is on the computers, it gets used everywhere. Arial always looked "less polished" of a typeface to me, though. What do you all think??? Threedog 19:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Helvetica is a more 'elegant' typeface to the trained eye. On the other hand, it is a fact that the Group standard typeface for all Royal Bank of Scotland letter correspondence is Arial MT, while for NatWest it is Helvetica (for main body text - proprietary NatWest fonts are used for headers, legal footers etc). Go figure...

155.136.80.161 17:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Stewart Pinkerton, Document Solutions, Royal Bank of Scotland Group[reply]

There are other sans-serif typefaces (such as Gill Sans) which are far more elegant than either... AnonMoos (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the Helvetica font appears more formal than Arial. But Arial is the standard in today's computer-driven world. IMO, Helvetica font should be used in ppt presentations and professional publications (like covers or headings.) Arial should "stay" on the web, only used in emails, drafts of text, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.143.188 (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A big problem with Arial's ubiquity is the fact that it has become the default typeface for spreadsheets, such as Excel, Google Sheets and OpenOffice, a job for which it is ill-suited because the number glyphs are not of equal width, a property shared with Helvetica and Times, though not with Verdana, Cambria and Baskerville, which do have number glyphs of equal width. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helvetica vs. Univers

The article makes the following assertion:

"However, a close examination of Helvetica, Arial, and Univers reveals that the latter two are in many respects more similar than the former two"

Despite the hedge "in many respects", this sentence implies that Arial is more similar to Univers than to Helvetica -- which is totally false. Arial and Helvetica are almost indistinguishable. While Arial may share a small number of features with Univers, it is still much closer to Helvetica -- witness the fact that it is universally known as a Helvetica clone, not a Univers clone. I'm leaning towards rewriting the sentence to something more neutral, more like "Arial shares certain features with Univers." Any thoughts on this? WillNL 18:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to agree. Only some characters (1, G, t and possibly other ones?) actually share some Univers features. All the rest is a sort of mix between Helvetica and Grotesque MT. On the other hand, I wouldn't say that "Arial and Helvetica are almost indistinguishable". To an untrained eye, certainly. But not to a trained eye or a typeface enthusiast like me (differences between the two look flagrant to me).

Dioxaz 22:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Considerations of which are more similar aside, can I just say that this is one of the most tortured sentences I've ever seen on Wikipedia? I've been tempted to change it for some time, but for some reason I've left it. I suppose it is out of grudging respect for the impressively convoluted phrasing. –Joke 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

google analytics reports

This font (arial mt or arialmt) is used in the email reports sent by google analytics. It's pretty ugly too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Family Guy Guy (talk • contribs) 20:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified claims and other issues

I made a series of edits today to acknowledge a number of issues mainly relating to the comparisons of Arial to Helvetica and Univers.

The intro section is not the place to publish any material that is unverifiable. Controversies are best characterized in vague terms, with details given later in the article, where they can be tagged as needed for failure to cite sources. Therefore I moved the Arial-Univers comparison to the 'Typographic tempest' section and left a more terse statement in the intro.
There appear to be no reliable sources to verify that Microsoft wanted to avoid licensing costs in general, and that it wanted to imitate Helvetica in particular. Can someone provide such a source?
Similarly, there appear to be no reliable sources to verify that Arial was developed to fill this perceived need. Can someone provide such a source?
The claim that Arial was derived from Monotype Grotesque appears to be speculation by Mark Simonson. This claim is repeated twice in the article. Is there a more reliable source for it?
Many statements in the article were variations on the theme of Arial being a cheap Helvetica knockoff. I attempted to reduce the amount of redundancy for its own sake, but also to avoid putting in that many more "citation needed" tags.
The statement "The inclusion of Arial with Windows has made it one of the most widely distributed typefaces in the world" seemed to belong in the Distribution section, not the Typographic Tempest section, so I moved it. If Arial's ubiquity is also a factor in its being held in low regard, then that connection should be made more explicit (and sources cited).
It wasn't clear what effect Arial's designers being relatively unknown had on the negative perception of Arial. I'm guessing the intent was to imply that unknown designers charge less, further bolstering the impression that Arial is "cheap". But maybe it was to imply that well-known designers wouldn't have risked their reputations to produce something so similar to Helvetica? Or perhaps it's just that well-known designers are prejudiced and hate whatever their lesser-known counterparts produce? Clarification is needed; I went with the first explanation but would prefer something more concrete.
The article makes conflicting claims: Arial is shipped with "many" Postscript printers, but "most" Postscript printers substitute it with Helvetica. How can both of these claims be correct? I didn't do anything about this conflict.
The statement that Arial's glyph widths are identical to Helvetica's is plausible, but not obvious to a lay person; a source for this claim would be preferred. It's also not obvious whether and why this characteristic would be a reason to deride Arial. Surely there are lots of fonts that have similar glyph widths.
As more-or-less mentioned in previous discussion, the statement that Arial's most striking differences to Helvetica are actually things it has in common with Univers is pure original research, as far as I can tell. Cite a source for this. If the point is just to suggest that Arial should be hated for being a knockoff of not just Helvetica but Univers too, then this material is altogether inappropriate and should be removed.

I also made some relatively minor phrasing changes and copy edits to just be more consistent in neutrally characterizing the situation. If someone could research and address the issues above, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. —mjb 04:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more references, and removed the conflicting "Helvetica is substituted with Arial" and the Univers stuff (since there didn't seem to be any basis for them). Since there are no more fact tags, I also removed the "needs references" tag.—Jlin 02:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Fact

Is it worth mentioning that Arial is the font used by Wikipedia? If you want check that it is, click page>view source and read the css tags. I think this would be relevant to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.78.62 (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The font on Wikipedia pages displayed in your browser really depends on the Wikipedia skin you choose (assuming you you have a registered Wikipedia id), or whether your browser preferences override the fonts set up for the web page by one of your choosing. If you are using default settings, and are running your browser from a Windows environment, you should see Arial. Unfortunately, not all Wikipedia visitors will see Arial due to the reasons above, especially those not browsing from Windows or MacOS platforms where Arial may not be included in the distribution. --Chikinsawsage 22:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copyright

It can be used on images? I mean, use it on a self-made work implies the recognition of some legal limitations? thanks190.21.213.196 (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

original name

Arial was originally known as Sonoran Sans Serif. cites [1] - I don't think this supports it - I seriously doubt Times New Roman was ever originally called Sonoran Serif. --Random832 (contribs) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. That source only says Sonoran Sans is the "functional equivalent" of Arial. That's like saying it's a good substitute, and has nothing to do with origins.

This source says "Sonoran Serif is Monotype Times New Roman as distributed at low digital resolutions by IBM." It says nothing like that about Arial though. Googling for "Sonoran Sans" doesn't turn up much - at least, nothing that couldn't have used this Wikipedia article as it source.

Further research is needed to find a good source. —mjb (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mistakes

in the article about Arial, it were saying Arial has italics, what is completelly wrong - Arial has obliques, not italics - and the different between both oblique and italic is huge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_type —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.183.129 (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin Books' Ariel

User:193.35.132.46 tried to change the article to say that the Sonoran Sans Serif roots of Arial are a myth, and that actually it was based on an Eric Gill typeface which debuted in Penguin Books' Ariel. Specifically, his argument is that Arial began with Edward Johnston, because:

Johnston influenced Eric Gill;
Gill made the typeface for Penguin's first books in 1935, which incorporated progressive typography;
Ariel ended up being the first Penguin book published;
Gill then named the typeface after the book;
Microsoft "went for a new radical version of this famous typeface" in order to compete with Apple.

This series of unsubstantiated arguments was made without a single citation to back it up. We must demand citations for anything that completely conflicts with the published, cited sources we've already found. Otherwise, it is original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia, violating the verifiability policy. (Basically, it must appear in print before we can accept it.) Also, he included a huge, copyrighted chunk of text about Penguin, lifted from Design Museum, so it was a violation of the WP:COPYVIO policy as well. Lastly, one look at the book cover in question suggests that Arial's resemblance to the Ariel typeface is no greater than its resemblance to a host of others, so again, citations of reliable sources are needed before we can even entertain this, ahem, novel theory. —mjb (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the font shown on Ariel's cover appears to be Gill Sans or a close relative, and I've never heard of Gill Sans going by any other name (Bitstream's generically-named redraws notwithstanding). It sounds like a pretty clear case of not only original research, but WP:MADEUP as well. -lee (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arial = Helvetica

It seems to be very clear that Arial is a rip-off of Helvetica, so why is this not stated in the article? It says that Arial is "actually based" on another font, but is so much closer to Helvetica, I don't get why this fact is hidden. - Jetro (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be stated in the article, but no reliable sources could be found to back up that assertion—just blogs, message board posts, and other op-ed pieces from Helvetica fans dismayed by Arial's ubiquity and perceived flaws. Meanwhile, there are some reliable sources which support the notion that the design is based on a different type family, as well as other, slightly less accusatory points of view: 1. that it's very similar to Helvetica in proportion & weight; 2. that it's a de facto substitute for Helvetica; and 3. that most people have trouble telling the difference. The Helvetica article on Wikipedia contains similar statements.

The "Is Arial Dead Yet?" article is one of the good sources we're using, having been published in a professionally edited, peer-reviewed trade publication (i.e., presumably some fact-checking occurred). It actually goes so far as to say that Arial was designed to be a substitute for Helvetica, rather than just having ended up as such. We could update our wording here (the "de facto" bit) based on that.

Regardless, despite the history and the apparent similarities, that article makes it clear that Arial isn't based on Helvetica, at least not as far as can be verified. We can't claim otherwise unless we can cite an even better source, and even then, we might have to characterize it as one of several conflicting points of view. —mjb (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it could be considered libellous to call Arial a "rip-off of Helvetica" without very clear and authoritative evidence, not just that people struggle to tell the difference. As Jetro uses the word "seems", the existing evidence is clearly not good enough. And I don't care how "clear" this "fact" might "seem", claims like this are serious and need to be fully backed up. Halsteadk (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. To say that it's a rip-off is the same as saying that its designers are thieves, which would violate WP:BLP, no matter how similar the typefaces are. —mjb (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PBS logo

Didn't the PBS logo use the Arial font in 1970? 69.248.117.178 (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helvetica, surely. Arial is a Helvetica ripoff designed in 1982. Blythwood (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except, it wasn't a rip-off; Monotype designed it for IBM, and Microsoft decided to use it as a substitute for Helvetica. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Arial. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.stepinsidedesign.com/STEP/Article/28763/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of articles about fonts

I've had the idea of using the template DISPLAYTITLE and the font family html tags to display the titles of articles about fonts in their fonts. For example, for this article about Arial, using the source code:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:<font face="Arial">Arial</font>}}

I tried this on Arial, Times New Roman, Comic Sans MS, and I think it makes articles autological and personaly, funny and whimsical, without compromising their reliability. But I later undid the edits, because I think it goes against the rule Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Font family about font families, because Wikipedia is supposed to be flexible. Is it explicitly against the project of Wikipedia, displaying fonts in titles of articles about fonts? 177.71.22.253 (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing section

This article omits information about the font's symbol coverage. Eg what languages does it support? How extensively does it cover unicode? That's a pretty important omission. FreeFlow99 (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage and History:

2.55 WGL4 Characters (Latin, Greek, Cyrillic) (European)

2.76 Added Extended Latin (Vietnamese, Pinyin), Hebrew, Arabic (Windows 2000)

2.82 Added Schwa for Azeri, Cyrillic Asian, Arabic extension (Windows XP)

3.06 Added Romanian S and T comma characters and Cyrillic I-Grave

5.00 Finished Latin Extensions B, C, Phonetic, Additional, Completed Greek, Cyrillic, Hebrew, Arabic as of Unicode 5.0 (Windows Vista)

5.06 Added select Unicode 5.1 characters and Tenge Sign (Windows 7)

6.89 expanded Latin Extended C and D, more Arabic characters, compliant to Unicode 6.1 (Windows 8)

7.00 added and expanded Latin Extension D and E, added Armenian, compliant to Unicode 9.0 plus Bitcoin Sign (Windows 10) 23.84.161.97 (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Term Clone not really applicable to Arial.

Hello people,

I find it bizarre that Arial is repeatedly called a "clone" of Helvetica in this article. However there are no sources cited which directly show that Arial was designed with the intention to copy helvetica.

Also, Arial is way too dissimilar to Helvetica to be called a clone. Arial mostly avoids horizontal stroke endings, whereas Helvetica always has them. Also there are obvious differences in many letters for example 'a', 'R' and 'G'.

This should be removed and replaced with something adequate. 2003:CB:2723:3E00:F41F:6E07:F95D:1DDD (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. It's not a requirement of metrically compatible typefaces that they have the same appearance, just that the letters fit into the same box widths. That's true for Arial, it matches to Linotype's standard PostScript version of Helvetica. I don't include the word "clone" upfront in the lead because of these design differences. "Clone" is used in a direct quote from Matthew Carter, who consulted on the design. Mark Simonson's explanations are also good for the backstory of how and why Arial was introduced. Blythwood (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]