Recently there has been a lot of commotion about the typeface Helvetica. In 2007 a very popular film was created to document the 50th anniversary of this prolific face.2 According to not-a-few accounts3 this film only served to fan the flame of what may have been a passing resurgence of a fad into an all-out neo-modernist revival in the usage of the face. Who can complain? Helvetica is a gift from the Swiss gods of type design.
Max Miedinger, Helvetica’s dad.
Not pictured is Eduard Hoffmann, Helvetica’s mom.
an abbreviated history
For those of my readers who are not familiar with the historical significance of Helvetica it will suffice to say that Helvetica was designed in the late 50’s to be marketed as a competitor in the Swiss market with the established and popular Akzidenz-Grotesk.4 Helvetica’s popularity in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s was unmatched as it was adopted internationally for uses in branding, advertising and communications. It was, in a way, a rebuttal to the swashy hand-lettered signs and ads of the era, and in some cases represented a new way of thinking, a breath of fresh air, and a way to get rid of the clutter.5 These tenants of simplifying and reducing were also held by the Modernists of that time, who adopted Helvetica as what came to be interpreted in some minds as the de-facto typeface of that movement. (Of course Helvetica was not used exclusively, but its prominence can not be denied.) One of the major reasons that Helvetica was so successful in these conditions is that visually, the letter forms were neutral in implied meaning6 — as opposed to a script which often implies elegance or formality, or a serif face which can have a scholarly or official implication. Helvetica was intended to be neutral in its visual implications, in fact the very name itself — Helvetica7 — translates to “Swiss,” a personification of a country who has remained historically neutral in almost all instances.
the mysterious brother
I imagine that most of the people who frequent this blog are at least familiar with the history of Helvetica. What may not be so obvious is the history of the variant Helvetica Neue. If you own a Mac you will have noticed that the default font in many of the applications is Helvetica. If you have played around with the pre-installed fonts you may have come across Helvetica Neue. There are eleven faces included in this family, compared to the four included in the default installation of Helvetica. I hope it can become clear why some choose to use the Neue variant.
what’s neue?8
In 1983, Linotype’s daughter company Stempel AG released a reworking of Helvetica with more structurally unified heights and widths. I was delighted to learn that Erik Spiekermann was the design consultant on the project and also created the literature for the launch. This strikes me as ironic since it was Spiekermann who, in the film mentioned above, railed against the face. His major critique was that Helvetica has become “ubiquitous” 9 in that it is seen and used everywhere and often with poor taste. Not exactly a criticism of the design of the face itself, but of its use, and often miss-use. Other changes in this newer design include improved legibility, heavier punctuation marks, increased spacing in the numbers and an expanded family of weights, 51 in all.
Erik Spiekermann, German. Type-o-maniac.
What more do you need to know?
For the longest time I used Helvetica and Helvetica Neue interchangeably and really had no preference for either of them. Not too long ago I decided to take a closer look and compare, letter by letter, to discover the difference, and more importantly, if it even mattered. What I found was not life changing to say the least, but interesting enough to write about it on my day off — Thus!
the process used
In comparing these two fonts made up of shapes nearly identical, there are not many processes that will give an accurate depiction. One cannot, with great success, inspect one and then move their eyes quickly to the other hoping to notice the subtleties of the cuts. I elected to place them one on top of the other, aligned to the center or the stem (whichever appropriate) of the character, using two different colors and a transparency technique to allow a new, third color to appear where the letter forms overlap. In the following studies I have designated Helvetica in a yellow color and Helvetica Neue in cyan. When the two overlap the resulting color is green. I studied both the regular and bold weights, but I am showcasing only the bold as it is more … substantial in larger sizes.
In the following I will select the letters I feel showed the biggest departure in the redesign of Helvetica Neue, and for each I will give my opinion about which I like better. Keep in mind please, that I am a self-taught type-lover and these are only my observations — they may be a bit naive.
the letter “G”
Showing major different cuts in the letter “g,” it seems that Helvetica Neue is trying to tighten up things a bit. The first thing that should be obvious is that the height of the lowercase is taken in; both the top and the bottom of the letter show results from this trim. As a result, a bit of definition in the arc of the loop leading up to the terminal is lost. In this instance I prefer the original cut.
The capital “G” tells the same story. The arc, or shoulder, is pressed down in comparison to the original Helvetica. It’s as if the re-designers were trying to make the letters take up less space.
As Helvetica is known for being a face that is “held” 10 by the whitespace in and surrounding it, I wonder why this approach was taken?
In the case of the “Gg,” I prefer Helvetica over Helvetica Neue.
the letter “M”
In what looks to be a philosophy completely opposite to “g,” “m” has been expanded visually. This way of thinking is most noticeable in the capital form. The fillet, or space between the adjoining strokes in the center of the “M” is not as deep, neither are the cuts on the opposite of these strokes. As a result, the strokes themselves are thickened and the letter form overall is given quite a bit more weight.
This same idea of strengthening is passed on to the lowercase “m” by extending the overall width and pressing down on the top to create a more husky shape.
I had to take a double take when I saw this. In the case of the letter “Mm” I much prefer Helvetica Neue.
the letter “R”
I noticed this difference before the study, in fact it was the very thing that sparked my interest and led to the study itself. The leg of the capital “R” has been re-imagined all together, as opposed to the other re-alignments we have heretofore seen. Helvetica has a curve as you go down the leg, then a swift hook before the final terminal. Helvetica Neue throws the hook out the window, and in doing so, the said ark ends in a sharp point at the terminal. Wow. I know, right? This little feature is only seen in one other instance: the lowercase bold “a.” That letter sees the same change (not pictured.)
The lowercase “r” receives the same expansion in width and compression in height as is seen in the other examples. In this instance it feels like the spur is given room to end properly.
In the case of the “Rr” I mourn the loss of that hook on the leg, but I prefer the spacing and feel of Helvetica Neue.
the numbers “1” and “2”
My study not only covered both upper and lowercase in both regular and bold weights, but the numerals of each weight also.
In this example we can see the same expanded width and compressed height at work. Interesting to note the flag (is that what we are calling that sticky-outy bit?) on the “1” has been lowered, as has been the terminal of the “2.”
Because of the expansion in the width there is a defined stress on the central stroke of the “2” resulting in a little big more attitude. The flow of that stroke is one of the things that set Helvetica apart from its then competitor, Akzidenz-Grotesk.
In the case of these numerals I prefer Helvetica Neue.
I hope that was as fun and enlightening for you to read as it was for me to discover and write. I guess the only thing to do now is to add up the votes. The sample I took here (these four instances) came from reviewing the entire alphabet and selecting the ones with the greatest differences and the best talking points between them. You can download the sheet I created to conduct my study and review them for yourself. I’d like to know your opinions and preferences in the comments below.
and the
winner is…
Of course this study only concerns two weights from each family, and is therefore slightly limited in its scope.11
I am not recommending that in all cases this is true for all applications, but for this study, the winner is Helvetica Neue with three out of four votes!
MMM. Noy-a! Actually I enjoyed how the over lap forms merged and created a third form of font
Green helvetica! Hulkinized!
This is interesting but I don’t understand if “VERSES” n the title is a typo or a clever pun. There is at least another orthographic error in the article. Please check your spelling before publishing. There’s an alarming trend of spelling mistakes on design blogs that slowly but inexorably destroys the language.
Great (looking) post!
@mthree “You won’t like me when I’m monospaced.”
@M3, Thanks for stopping by. I’m glad you enjoyed this.
@Andrea, Thank you very much for contributing to this article, I put a lot of time into it and I want it to be the best that it can be. It’s rather embarrassing when small (and sometimes grievously large) errors sneak in.
Also thank you to Thierry, who discreetly emailed me about some corrections needed in foot note number 7.
I appreciate when the community engages to provide a better experience for subsequent readers!
@Alan, Thanks for coming around, I am glad you enjoyed yourself.
Is that remark meant to be ironic or does it simply rely on the prejudice German=inflexible, arrogant? I find this childish at best, obnoxious at worst.
I never say anywhere that Helvetica is a bad typeface, just that people often use it because they cannot be bothered to look further. And then often justified their laziness by some made-up theory about neutrality. As if typography could ever be neutral.
And now for a few constructive remarks: I won’t go into spelling – there are lots of mistakes, but they happen in a blog and someone else has already pointed that out. And what do I know anyway, I’m only German.
But research needs to be correct.
1. The foundry is D. Stempel AG (as in David Stempel Aktiengesellschaft), not Stemple; I see that the spelling mistake has been rectified since I looked at the site earlier today. Good.
2. The typeface is called Neue Helvetica, as in New Helvetica, not Helvetica Neue. That comes from sorting it alphabetically in earlier, unsophisticated databases.
3. Ubiquitous is not the same as everywhere. Look it up.
4. Helvetian would have been the proper adjective describing the origin. But that name was taken by another company, so Helvetica was the compromise. Luckily, as it turned out.
@Erik, Thank you for reading, and also for your constructive remarks. I’ll be sure to implement the necessary corrections as soon as I can.
Let me apologize for offending you. That caption was based on my experience with Germans, which is not extensive, but on the other hand, not limited. I find them to be direct and effective in their actions and intentions. It is by no means intended as an insult. I realize now though, that this is a gross generalization and I’ll work to make reparations.
I also never say that you say ‘Helvetica is a bad typeface’. I feel that I handled your comments about Helvetica rather fairly.
I must admit, Erik, I am rather pleased to have you leave a comment here. Not only are your comments welcome, the corrections will only serve to make this article better. In all seriousness, your presence is also … humbling(?) For a long time I have looked up to you as a sort of type-rockstar, and despite your less-than-enthusiastic remarks, I am kind of giddy to have served you a page of this website. Thank you for stopping by and for your contributions.
@Alan, I get it! Hahaha! Very clever.
Oh Erik! Now that I have you, Can I ask you a question? Do you know why the tip of the leg on the capital R was changed so? I am sure the reasoning behind that change would be illuminating!
Travis, as usual a well researched, nicely written and beautifully presented article. I really enjoyed reading it (although following all the footnotes got to be a bit tedious).
I have to say that in recent months I have fallen in love (corny I know) with Helvetica Neue or, more correctly, Neue Helvetica (thanks Erik). I mourn the fact that it’s not a “web-safe” font, as it renders so well at regular body sizes (at least it does in Safari and Firefox under OS X), in a variety of weights.
At 100 weight and larger point sizes the typeface is nothing short of stunning and, again, renders brilliantly on a web-page.
Punctuation and other glyphs are also well designed — the attention to detail in this typeface absolutely amazes me.
“Ubiquitous” it may be, but there’s a reason for that!
I’ll be leaving for Amsterdam first thing, but do remind me to get out the brochure we did for the Neue Helvetica launch in 1983. Te reasons for the changes are all listed. Most of them have to do with letterspacing being too tight on the original and inconsistencies between weights, as those were all done separately over a few years.
Thanks Erik, I look forward to hearing more about that. I wonder if there is a digital version laying around on a hard drive somewhere, or on the internet. I would love to get my eyes on that.
What would be even more exciting to read/hear/watch would be a more in-depth story, from your point of view, of the crafting of Neue Helvetica.