Because they think being generic (which Helvetica actually hasn't been for a while now) will make everybody their customer.

My favorite description of Helvetica is by GG Lange, who equates it with a short-torsoed long-armed village idiot.

I myself have a trademark on "Helvomita".

hhp

wow. I'll snatch that trademark. Thank yooo!

On the other hand, you can be "generic" but still tasteful... I mean, what about frutiger for instance?

The many weights available for Helvetica is a plus though...

Frutiger is dated too.

To me, the current generic is FF Kievit:
http://www.fontfont.de/packages/kievit11231/kievit11231.html
http://www.fontfont.de/packages/kievit11232/kievit11232.html

> The many weights available for Helvetica is a plus though.

Except they have inconsistent features.
(Although they fixed that in the Neue.)

hhp

That was nice. I don't agree frutiger is dated... it has a timeless quality that I like. As for what helvetica series, I was talking about the neue...

I'm going to slightly disagree here and admit that I actually LIKE Helvetica. (GASP!) I mean the font, not most uses of it.

Unfortunately, it's become so commonplace and so accessible that it's very often ruthlessly abused by unskilled hands.

Computers have aided and abetted this trend, but it was true even before the days of desktop publishing. Helvetica began suffering its vicious cycle of abuse in the '60s and '70s, as "generic" became a trendy design thing.

In my opinion, Helvetica (whether the original or the "Neue" series) is at its most beautiful when used as a display font (perhaps the way some woodcut faces would be used), taking advantage of its range of weights and widths as well as its graceful and more subtle shapes. It should be incorporated into the design, rather than simply plastered mercilessly across a page like so much eggshell latex semi-gloss paint. The IRS and Adobe Acrobat will spend decades in Purgatory for their crimes against Helvetica.

Don't malign the font just because 99% of its users are abusing it. Hasn't it been through enough pain? After all, this plain "generic" font became as popular as it is (before computers) for a reason.

Arial can't claim this. It was hacked out, mass-marketed and force-fed to hapless computer consumers.

A few moments spent flipping through any preferred design annual or an issue of "Graphis" proves how stunningly Helvetica can be used, in the right hands.

David
(Helvetica sympathizer)

David makes a very good point about Helvetica at display sizes, and I too like it. The incredible range of weights seems to me to be testament to its robust underlying structure. The Helvetica "S" is one of the most remarkable lettershapes ever, in my opinion.

Actually, I disagree with the "S", I've heard many people saying that they find it one of the most beautiful characters in a typeface. The reason I disagree is that (even at display sizes) the S closes itself, and breaks the reading direction... I might be off here, but that's just what I "sense" when looking at it.

I have one helvetica love though, The rounded series just makes me smile for some reason

What ever happened to Zuzana Licko redoing Helvetica and adding true italics. I can't recall where I heard about this, but I do recall contacting Emigre and not getting any reply.

Carbon brakes on a Pinto.

hhp

I'll try a response charged with a little less
bias <wink>...

Emigre may not have done it, but the wonderful
Mr. Éric de Berranger sure did. He trained with
Porchez, but I think he surpasses JFP on many
levels. Check Helwissa and the rest.

Stephen

My recollection about the Licko effort that Ole mentioned is that this was Zuzana's contribution to an article in one of the design magazines a couple years back. I thought it was Critique -- but I couldn't find the article in my collection, so perhaps it was another.

If I remember correctly, the magazine asked several designers to revamp a logo or a design. Zuzana was asked to update Helvetica. In her response, I think she said that she didn't feel that Helvetica should be redesigned, but that it could benefit from a true italic and so that's what she contributed.

I don't think the project was ever meant as anything more than an exercise.

-- Kent.

Kent is right but it was HOW magazine.
Feb 2000 issue, "Anatomy of a Redesign"
The Licko Helvetica bit is on Page 69.
Very brief and speculative.
Letters "a" and "z" are examined as a roman,
oblique and then Licko's true italic version.

-Eric

That's the one. Thanks, Eric. Looking back at the article, it seems to me that Licko's prototype italic 'a' is too heavy at the top and bottom of the bowl. Or, conversely, the stems are too light.

-- K.

I wouldn't go that far. Once in a blue moon Helvetica is a very good choice. Sure, it's usually a sad occasion, but serving the client/user often means holding back the tears. :-)

hhp

I had a design savvy client that used Helvetica for years on absolutely everything.
I did a bit of re:design of helvetica myself for this client by doing a unicase to be used on a few web banners. They are on back-up but i will try to dig em' up and do a post later this week.

Here are a couple of attempts from the seventies to redesign Helvetica:

Lol, the "helvetica flair" made me chuckle

These typefaces used to make me cringe (esp. Helvetica Flair). I still cringe, but with a pang of nostalgia. It's only a matter of time before somebody with a sense of irony revives HF. If there's a Helvetica revival, the mutants can't be far behind.

I used to cringe at Avant Garde Gothic too, but these days I view it more as an interesting experiment in geometric sanserifs and ligatures. You must admit, it does have a wide array of innovative ligatures. Unfortunately, these aren't included with most digital cuts of the face.

The fact that Avant Garde Gothic looks terribly dated today may have more to do with its overuse (much like the much-maligned Helvetica) than with its intrinsic design. When it is used well (and, admittedly, that is an extremely rare occurrence) it can shine.

Like Helvetica, it is at its strongest when used as a display font rather than a text face.

Having said that, however, I also should admit that I rarely (if ever) use it.

I can, however, envision a day (perhaps in the far-flung future :D ) when it might become fashionable again. After all, who would have thought that woodcut fonts would have ever returned to a state of vogue? Yet they have, several times, and they still pop up in stunning design even today. Again, it's all in how they are used.

David
(Seemingly becoming a homely font sympathizer in general)

in reply to post #1:

i think one of the reasons its so popular these days in general is because of TheDesignersRepublic. they use it quite heavily in all their work, web and print.

http://www.thedesignersrepublic.com/

iota.

helvetica is god... the fact that people are talking about it on this forum to this degree is testament enough to that. like i said yesterday helvetica is a great all around typeface because it sets very well for titling/display as well as for moderate amounts of copy. helvetica is and will remain a classic type specimen.

Alright, alright... can't we talk about something else instead?!

iota, the popularity of helvetica stems way beyond the fact that a flash in the pan group (who i do in fact love) like the designers republic use of it. it even goes further then the fact that it is just a great all around face. it's popularity stems from the fact that postmodernism has eaten itself alive and returned to it's roots in modernism. the modernist aesthetic is alive and kicking again because of postmodernism. how ironic it is but then again it can be expected from a movement as ironic as postmodernism. because helvetica rose to the forefront of the modernist movement it has become a shoe in as far as the retro mimicry of postmodernism is concerned. but it's the fact that it is such a great face that people have fallen in love with it again.

hahahahaha. keith, it will never end. helvetica will take over the world. it is already half way there resistance is futile... just submit.

AGFA-Monotype has set up a lot of these dummy sites
that link to fonts.com, but they forgot to proofread.

People can use Helvetica all they want. I won't give in.

I'm just wondering what you think of Avant Garde? One of my instructors at school said that it's like 'processed cheese'. I couldn't agree more. And Helvetica is processed Swiss cheese :-) Not really the real thing. Univers is the real thing.

Velveetica...

BTW, there's a Frutiger interview in issue #2 of the recently launched "TYPO" (a lustrous garnet of a magazine from the Czech Republic), and one thing he says is: "Helvetica is not really the best typeface for legibility. Weingart said, if someone is using Helvetica he doesn't know anything about typography."

--

And jay, PoMo isn't dead - it was simply hijacked. It managed to escape, but now it's lost, and trying to find its true home.

hhp

i didn't say it was dead i just said it's contradicting itself in such a way that it seems like it's on it's last legs. though contradiction is at the heart of postmodernism it's own contradiction could mean it's in it's glory days.

weingart ,shmienghart... i know he's mister modern but have you ever looked at his work? it's not that good. helvetica is god. just submit to it. it will treat you well.

Hey, Life is contradictory.
Modernism is for kids.

> Weingart

Although what I've heard about his teaching style makes me admire him, I don't like his actual work, no. But at least he eats real cheese.

hhp

keith, i think avant garde has too much character and is much too geometric. i don't really put helvetica into that same category as avant garde. i think avant garde is more of a display than anything else. you could never set copy in it. univers on the other hand is just not a very handsome face. i've seen many of my contemporaries at art center come over to the darkside on the univers/helvetica issue. univers is just too organic in it's letterforms. i'd rather use akzidenz or even frutiger over univers. helvetica is more ridged than universe that's obvious but why use a half breed face like universe that doesn't do a good job of being either geometric or humanist.

Hrant, life is contradictory. i think the modernist new this. this little fact of life though doesn't necessarily make postmodernism correct. it's not that i don't value postmodernism i just think that at the end of the day when all conceptual sides have been analyzed into the ground, a decision still needs to be made. systems like modernism work in a much more fluid and economical manner because the decision is easier to arrive at. to discredit the modernist does the same to discredit postmodernists. one springs from the other. which is also part of life.

sorry hrant, i meant to say "knew"

As primarily a writer and reader, and secondarily a typofile, I emphatically agree with those who say that Helvetica is a rotten text face.

A whole page of Helvetica, especially set wide, is an actual pain to read. I want to kick the person who designed the page whenever I see such a horror.

I really think this is something that can be settled by testing. If you set a page in Helvetica and in, say Adobe Caslon or any of the classic serif types, and ask people I bet you you will get an overwhelming majority of people who say that the Helvetica is harder to read.

The merits of Helvetica as a display face are a matter of taste, but as a text face I think that those who say it is readible are radically and provably wrong, wrong, wrong.

After years of cursing pages - especially letter sized - with Helvetica I thought that no sans could be even decent for extended text. I was astonished by the PDF of Vesta at GerardUnger.com, which is quite readable.

The Humanist sans generally are much better in readibility - Bliss is my favorite for its elegance, but I still can't see the point of using a sans for extended text. They have a lot of other good uses, of course.

william... realistically with the ideal of "cool" out there who is going to be setting things in caslon. you'll look like an old fart. but maybe you are (and that's cool with me). these typefaces though great where built stylistically for different types of output. i'm not dismissing the past because reading a book set in metal that has been letterpressed is a pleasure (i own a letterpress so it's known that i love the stuff) but most things aren't done that way anymore and in case you haven't noticed we aren't going back anytime soon. as far as books go, yes, nobody wants to see cool and hip when they are reading the latest pulp novel but we are talking about moderate amounts of copy here e.g. annual reports. as far as helvetica as a display it's one of the better faces out there. it is much closer to being geometric, which make it a shoe in for display. that's why you see so much of it in use as display. this argument is getting very boring for me by now. i'd rather discus something more interesting like postmodernism vs. modernism. helvetica is a great face this has been decided by the collective not just me.

john is correct and the definition will be a slippery fish until we as a culture have moved beyond postmodernism. only then will the definition of the movement be clear

Modernism says Life is entirely "resolvable". Post-Modernism counters that you can control some things to some extent, but in the absolute, Life is beyond total comprehension.

I'm a Post-Modernist. Which is not at all the same thing as being a hooligan, or a fatalist.

hhp

> william... realistically with the ideal of "cool" out there who is > going to be setting things in caslon. you'll look like an old fart. > but maybe you are (and that's cool with me).

Jay, I really don't think that's very nice... Caslon has its place, and when you need comfortable, prolonged reading then it's a great choice. I don't think we as designers are simply making cool things. I'm proud to say that I'm NOT a 'cool' designer. I'm a reader-centered designer. Though I can be cool if a project needs me to be cool.

hahahahahaha. sorry keith that did sound mean. i just write in a very plain simple and honest manner. i don't always mean to offend. i do agree with you on many levels. i think we are all postmodern thinkers here and can see many sides. i'm only bringing up the cool/hip side. it is an important issue, you will never be able to ignore it and it is what gave birth in the past to many of the ideals that you guys are holding up as the be all end all to design.

From the PDF listed below:
Modernism & Postmodernism
from Lecture by Jeffrey Keedy, April 1998
modern = contemporary
modernism = ideology
postmodernism = a concept for a minute
Modernism = style and ideology, articulation of form, formalist, rationalist
Postmodernism = reaction, but not a rejection of Modernism. Erasing of boundaries, theory of discourse (most rejected)

Again. An interesting read is J. Keedy's article in the last edition of Emigre --- Modernism 8.0 --- the top link has a summation.

Some interesting reading for all of you.

http://www.patricking.com/bitch/
http://art.bgsu.edu/~childers/writing2.html
http://www.fawny.org/typoexpoagogo.html
http://www.new-series.org/?kinross
http://www.typotheque.com/articles/fuse.html
http://www.typotheque.com/articles/EK_PhD_bibliography.html
http://ndm.si.edu/EXHIBITIONS/mixingmessages/essay/typo/t_b.L3.9.html
PDF http://www.foothill.edu/fac/manske/Lecture_notes/PDF/Postmod_Graphic_Des.pdf
http://art.bgsu.edu/~childers/radical.html

the other thing that needs to be understood here keith is that i started my career being as naive as the next guy that posts here. i was only concerned with hip/cool. i then moved into the educated and conservative idealism of a type snob (much like hrant). but as a true postmodernist, i am now in a phase of rebirth and am moving back over to the other side. it's just not that fun being a typographic stick in the mud all the time. you have to have some fun.

that's a great post tiffany

I'm having a blast. We don't enjoy the same things.
I especially revel in trying to educate you! :-)

hhp

hahahahahaha. little do you know that i've already been educated by the best of the best.

now i'm in a state of relearning what it is about type and design that got me into the whole mess.

Hmmm. Jay, you did mean to say, "The best of the best [in Southern California.]" Right? I'm enjoying this typographic parlance myself, but you have yet to say, "in my humble opinion".

Now. In my humble opinion, the amount you pay for school and/or the amount you owe to the government when you finish, does not guarantee that one will have been educated by the best of the best. ;^)

No matter what we do we're living in a post-modern world. The beauty of it is we agree on disagreeing. No matter how 'Modernist' a piece of work might be, we won't be seeing it under the same light as our predecessors, because our world is not the same any more. So, a so-called 'Modernist' piece of design is simply a 'style' we pick from the 'big closet' in order to sell something to a particular group of 'target audience', who happen to be hip and cool and trendy yuppies. The same goes for 'traditionalist' designs.

I think we not only live in a post-modern world, we also live in a multicultural world (at least in this part of the world). That even renders so-called 'movements' like Post-modernism and/or Modernism at best redundant, or at worst, meaningless. It's time to lose the 'isms' and focus more on what we are supposed to do: to communicate visually. As long as we keep our goal in mind, and to continue to be passionate about what it is that we're doing, then we'll be alright.

I have two opposing views about typography: one of which is that typography is first and foremost about communicating the textual content as efficiently as possible; the other is utilizing the semantics of type to give design work particular 'atmospheres' or emotional responses. The first one is based on linguistic requirements and it's what 'traditional' (book) typography was (is) all about. The latter is based on visual requirements, which is what graphic design is about, mostly. Of course, these two views are not mutually exclusive and it is up to us to strike a balance between the two.

tiffany, last time i checked art center was still on the top of the list, not only in the US but in the world.

as far as money = best is concerned, the capitalist system that we live and breath in has set up the ideal that the more you pay the better quality you get. it's not my opinion just the world at large. in my humble opinion though art center cost much more then it should. no design education should cost that much. design is cheap an education in it should be as cheap.

"In my humble opinion, the amount you pay for school [...] does not guarantee that one will have been educated by the best of the best. ;^)"

well said, Tiffany! I've been working hard to explain this position to others as of late. far too many of the indiscriminately Helvetica-wielding "new media designers" I've met have come from the sort of schools people brag about, offering claims such as "best of the best" in regards to their education.

keith, well put, i agree, but it is the isms that keep it all in check. with out them we have no reference points. in the end, like life, design is a duality that swings from side to side.

plain clothes, going to the best schools in the world guarantees that you will be taught by the best. these institutions draw those kinds of professors. it's just plain stupid to think other wise. what they don't do is guarantee that students graduating will themselves be great. just that they will have been taught by the greats of their time.

plain clothes, these types of hierarchies have existed since the dawn of time they are what these elitest forums are based on. things like hey i'm better then you because i know about this obscure whatchama-topic. if you don't like this and it makes you feel bad about yourself then there's not much that can be done for you. it's a hard part of life that we all have to come to grips with.

p.s. plain clothes, i don't think i'm better then you because i went to art center. i've not knowingly seen your work and you've not knowingly seen mine. i will say though that from the sounds of it i have been taught by better people then you. that says little about me but something about art center.

>i've already been educated by the best of the best.
However, you seem to have missed the class in Logic 101 when they taught that 'ad hominem' arguments are invalid. Name calling is not an argument.

You can go out and test text settings of Helvetica against Baskerville and Times New Roman and Century Schoolbook at similar visual sizes, and see the result. What is the initial reaction of readers? If you time how long it takes is there a difference? If you test comprehension is there a difference?

If these tests have been done, or are done fairly I think they will have come out on my side - Helvetica will be less readable. If I am wrong I will admit it. Name calling will not change the truth.

hey william, wake up. if you've looked over any of the past posts on this subject you will see this is not a debate between helvetica and fill in the blank; transitional, garalde, humanist blah blah blah serif. that's not open for debate. you'd have to be a idiot to try and say that a culture raised on roman serifed letters reads anything other then roman serifed letters with more fluidity.

as far as logic goes... f--k logic. this isn't about logic it's about art and subjectivity. i'll ad hominem the s--t out of you any day. hahahaha.

trying to make art into science is missing the boat.

> last time i checked...

I wouldn't begrudge you having Art Center in the Top Ten or even the top 3 or 2. But saying any school is the top, tippy tippy top, is wrong. Maybe it was the top school for you to attend. But it wouldn't have offered me the education I would have wanted. Great education is only the sum of its parts, ergo great students and great teachers. I sincerely believe this. Students have to be absorbing, Teachers have to be imparting good/correct information and from this comes a good education. Therefore I don't think it is so easy to say that this school or that school is the best. Good Students + Good Teachers = Good Education.

How much trouble will this get me into today?

I've seen what can happen when bad teachers (that don't care, or have given up) get a hold of good students (with their own drive and motivation). I've seen those students continue on and succeed in spite of their lopsided education. I've also seen good teachers (with the information needed and desire to impart it) attempt to work with students (who don't care or worse think there talent will save them at the eleventh hour). And I've also seen good teachers and good students and the education that has come of that.

[ Thanks Jay. I really want to spout off about this :^) ]

Sorry to all. I created another off-topic problem.

Jay, you are right about the capitalist world in which we live. However, I still think you are wrong. And also, you are right that Art Center's pricing is out of whack. Way out of whack.

And another thing, Jay, it isn't nice to resort to name calling in place of a well-written and well-informed thought. I think William's train of thinking is correct about the "testing".

But again, we are so far off-topic. Oops, my bad.

> trying to make art into science is missing the boat.

but we aren't discussing art, we are discussing design. Saying that we are discussing art would allow everyone's interpretation to be correct. (Devil's Adovcate)

a few things Jay had to say...

going to the best schools in the world guarantees that
you will be taught by the best. these institutions draw
those kinds of professors.

nothing is garaunteed. in fact, at state school (for some
tiny fraction of the cost), many of my instructors were
teaching simultaneously at well-renowned design
schools, including Art Center. of those who were not,
quite a few were picked up by these schools as
full-time faculty at a later date.

a major problem, noted by these professors and others
I've met, is the arrogance that is inherent in such
schools -- both in the students and professors.
arrogance is not always crippling, but often enough to
be troublesome.

it's just plain stupid to think other wise.

how very constructive of you.

[...] things like hey i'm better then you because i know
about this obscure whatchama-topic. if you don't like
this and it makes you feel bad about yourself [...]

I feel perfectly fine about myself, actually. my concern,
however, is that some unknowing soul might read an
opinion stated in such totalitarian language and take it
for gospel.

i will say though that from the sounds of it i have been
taught by better people then you.

first, see my comment above. second, you may be right;
if so, I'd love to continue conversing (arguing?) with
you until we mutually educate each other. being taught
by the best doesn't mean you've become the best, but
with experience and exchange you might.

I must say, your comments have brought me to these
forums far more than I've had time for in the last few
days! I thank you and curse you for that. ;)

oh no, here we go... the whole what's good for the whole might not be good for the individual. you must understand i'm not arguing this. you might be into some strange cult that worships a donkey so then it would make sense that a program that offered graphic design and donkey worship might be best for you. it wouldn't matter that the program might be bottom of the barrel and backwards but it's what the individual thinks is best for themselves. what i'm saying is that's not the case. there is truth to generalities. the type of generalities that say for instance that art center is one of the best schools in the world. without this there is no way you can even come into a forum like this and discus anything subjective let alone type. i just don't jive with that sort of thinking. there is a point to human classification and rankings. that is why they exist. that is why we are here talking about such topics as typography.

i agree with you on the art vs. design thing. i don't really want to open that one up. my point is though that we are talking about something that is highly subjective and in the area of craft boarders on art. i think we all know it will never be. but it is most certainly not science.

i'm glad i gave you the form to spout off about these things though. i think they are important because as soon as you start saying institutions like art center have no merit you discredit any of these topics that we are talking about. they all survive on the same ideals.

and your comments, plain clothes, as well as others, have brought me back many times too. you have all had very good things to say and i think we all know that the truth is nothing more than what we as a collective think because that becomes general consensus. i think these debates are great and i'm glad to have them with a group of thinking individuals. i'm off to teach class. you should all fear for my poor students.

Dear jay, you are so wrong in so many ways, I'm honestly completely lost - which is rare for me. So a "congratulations" of sorts...

hhp

The reason that the moniker "anonymous" shouldn't be allowed is for that very reason. Mr. Anonymous, Jay is simply voicing his opinion. He just keeps forgetting to state it that way. Right, Jay? ;^)

If we are generalizing, ok, Art Center is one of the best .... but, my point is that we shouldn't generalize. Nor should we make blanket statements that only hold up when intensely starched. That would be like saying all designers that appreicate pretty colors and strict typographic rules should work for Martha Stewart and anyone that has a penchant for carving letters into there skin should work for Sagmeister. I see what you are saying, do you see what I am saying? If your donkey remark was directed at my comments, you might not be "reading" what I "wrote". There is no room for blindness in what I was saying. And any kind of cult implies following blindly.

So we agree on the art v. design -- that is good -- subjectivity is everywhere and we can't help that, but if we refuse to generalize and really stop and think for a second, it isn't subjectivity that is getting in the way.

Jay, I hope you realize how patient and polite I've been with you, for all your pointless arguments and name-calling.

Typography is not totally subjective. There is some science in it. Some conclusions were drawn from empirical research, not just subjectivity, especially when it comes to legibility. Though they are not always so dependable.

Regarding schools, I think Tiffany pretty much said what I wanted to say. The school I went to, Emily Carr Institute in Vancouver, is arguably the top art school in Canada. They have a reputation of being 'arty-farty' and really have an attitude. It is probably the coolest school to be in Canada right now. That to me is a problem. People want to go there because it is cool, not because they want to learn. I was doing a project for a client last month and he told me 'to go crazy with it'... 'you're from Emily Carr, man!'. How do you think I felt then? I don't want to be streotyped, and I think I have my own agenda of being a designer. To me, bad teachers are the ones who spoon-feed their students and hope that they'll turn their students into exact copies of themselves. On the other hand, good teachers give students access to differing opinions and let them think for themselves, and ultimately making them good designers in their own rights. It is a teacher's job to let them think for themselves: what is good design? What is design even? Whatever that might be. The job of the teacher is to provide guidance in order to help them to fulfill their own personal goals. The least a teacher could do is to embrace the difference of his/her students.

tiffany you are always a pleasant voice of reason. believe it or not though i don't quite agree with you on the whole generalization issue. like i said before i think we under value generalizations in today's culture because they aren't p.c.. current postmodern thought dictates that we shouldn't be hasty and that we should step back and analyze every possibility until we are impotent to make a decision. i think this is a horrible way to approach things. though it may be too much for some of you to hear, i think generalizations are very valuable. general consensus becomes cultural fact. it doesn't matter if it is scientifically true or not it is true to the culture and that is what matters at the moment. this can be illustrated by the culture of of the 1950's when maybe 90%, or so, of america believed that god actually was real. it did not matter that science would make major movements to over throw this idea (or at the very least drastically alter it) latter on changing the reality of culture. if you were alive in the 1950's it was indisputable fact that god was real. i'm not naive enough to say that generalizations are always true though a lot of the time they are. i'm just a realist who says they are the truth at the moment as far as you and i are concerned and that's all that really matters. i think we are all tired of hearing that one exception to a generalization as though it changes the truth of that generalization e.g. all black labs are black (generalization) but my cousin has a black lab that is albino (exception) so not all black labs are black. this just gets stupid because the fact still remains that 99.9% of black labs are black. there is always an exception to any generalization but that does not make the generalization false. that is the beauty of the generalization, they are flexible. granted you are right too but i think you are to quick to dismiss a generalization because of a weak exception.

as far as the donkey thing goes you're reading too much into it. i'm only using it as a surface level example. and i'm not sure i understand your last comment, so please expound.

anonymous, just because your a huge wimp doesn't mean i forgot about you. what kind of wuss makes a post as anonymous and asks me my credentials. you won't even list your name. i'm surprised you even know what art center is but the fact that you do says it all. let's see what you have to say about any issues here and then we'll talk credentials.

and hrant. i don't really think you can be that lost its all pretty simple. just take off your rose colored glasses of idealism and look at the reality of it all.

jay. true, TDR aren't solely responsible for helvetica's revival, although they are largely responsible for bringing helvetica back "in vogue" amongst "new media designers". they are idolised by so many designers and therefore highly influentual in terms of typeface choice and style.

who'd of thought helvetica neue 95 black could look so good. ;)

i also agree with you on your point of modernism coming back around. i think its a good thing, it means younger designers are seeing that theres more to design than just making things look "cool", and designing based merely on aesthetics.

iota.

why thank you iota, you are one of the first people to agree with me <joke>. but i still have to say that i don't think it's just one or even a couple of design shops that can be blamed for the resurgence of helvetica. i think it is much more broad than that and is more deeply rooted in cultural shifts as a whole.

as far as helvetica neue black is concern it does look oh sooooo good. it sure is a handsome typeface.

when it comes to postmodern-modernism i am sad to report that for most it is still just an aesthetic or trend. it takes a concerned type of designer to really get at the meat of any aesthetic he is involved with (or ripping off).

keith, i'm offended that you would call our arguments pointless and i'm not sure where you got the idea that i was calling you names. i think you might have misread my honesty as an insult. it's not. as a matter of fact i quite respect your opinions, i may think they are timid and unrealistic but i still respect them. i even respect hrants opinions because though he has no idea i do in fact know exactly where he is coming from. he is the one you should really be afraid of. back to the topic at hand, the funny thing is that i'm an idealist about type like you are but i am much more of a realist than an idealist. i think most of you are caught up, way too much, in a type of egotistical idealism. you may think i am an egotistical maniac but i am in fact less of one then you would ever know. i just enjoy bringing people back down to earth. you should look at my comments as a humorous breath of fresh air <joke>.

it's funny how much you guys get all up in arms about the art center thing. it makes me laugh. it just shows how impressive of a school it is. you would have no idea but i actually like talking to people who have no idea what it is because they have no need to try and prove anything. you guys are a sorry lot.

I wasn't saying you were calling me names specifically, but in general in your posts... anyway. I've been enjoying the couple of days you've been here, actually. Maybe you're just being a devil's advocate?

I didn't get 'all up in arms' about Art Center. I in fact considered Art Center for grad school. It looked like a great place to be in. It's just way too out of budget for me: it was $9,000 per semester when I looked a few years ago. Times it by six (was it six semesters in total?) and it's $54,000 for the whole course! WAY WAY too expensive. I just don't think one should get too caught up about schools... that's all.

Time to go to bed. You too, eh, Jay? You're in Seattle? It's just a few hours down the road from here...

like i said before, art center is way to expensive. it is more money then any one person should spend on design (except clients). but it is a great school and i'll stand by that. i obviously have too. the greatest thing about art center though is that you can come into forums like this drop the name and watch everyone stir up like a hive of bees.

enjoy the evening keith.

> the culture of of the 1950's when maybe 90%, or so, of america believed that god actually was real.

And of course the reason they were being absurd is that Helvetica was only released in 1959.

--

Keith, it's not worth it, trust me. You cannot deliver therapy via ASCII. Our jay can be admired for his energy, but must be pitied for his ideological cocoon. Except of course if you believe that indeed ignorance is bliss.

And jay, my point isn't to be rude - I share your desire for candor.

On the other hand, I won't counter your every single fallacy (only the very worst ones) because it's not rational. I can tell that I'd need to devote weeks and megabytes to make even a dent in your bunker - and what's in it for me? And this is not a compliment of any kind: the one thing your glorious teachers apparently failed to teach you (assuming they even tried) is that the only way to become a better person is to be -and forever remain- a student. So as long as you remain uneducatable (and I'm not holding my breath for any improvement), I will restrict myself to the occasional reality-check, like this one.

hhp

>>the one thing your glorious teachers apparently failed to teach you...

The most important thing in any educational situation is not the quality of the school, or of the teachers, or of the resources, and it certainly isn't the price.
The single most important influence on the value of an educational experience is the student. This is why jw seems to have learnt so little at such an expensive school. His immaturity, combined with his awe for expensive things has resulted in very poor value from his (or someone's) educational spending.

I have no idea if art center offer any scholarships, or if a proportion of students there are funded through any means other than private wealth, but if all or most of the students are paying their own fees, then it seems to me that art center would suffer from limiting its constituency to the wealthy, which is always a recipe for declining standards.

jw, I think you upset people because almost as soon as you arrive hereyou namedrop the art center into the conversation, then demonstrate that you have very little understanding, but you put your views forcefully and with personal insults attached.

It may appear to many of the designers here (who may have had to really struggle to get where they are today) that you bought yourself an expensive education and now you behave as if you think that entitles you to instant respect.

It doesn't.

hrant, you may not think so but you are preaching to the choir from your lofty white tower on this one. i hate to say it but i've been there and done that with all of these concepts. you'd have to be living in a cave to have survived into adulthood with out coming across these trite and p.c. concepts. though we should all be students of life if there are no teachers then we have no standards for guidance. i can't believe someone as entrenched in their own ideas as you hrant would talk about being a student. i don't think i've seen a single post of yours that eludes to the fact that you learn from others but you are welcome to enlighten me. i guess my response to this part of your last post would be to practice what you preach.

steven, you have missed the point from long ago. i've already said what you have said here but let me paraphrase. great institutions like art center attract great teachers but great teachers don't always make great students. it makes me laugh to see individuals like you violently react to posts that are just out rightly honest about these or any other issues. you don't seem to take things well yourself. if you'd just sit back drop some of your own internal ego struggles you might be able to see what i'm saying in most of these posts. no where have i said i'm better than anyone else here. you are just reading these things into it because my guess is that you are having internal struggles with you own ego and out right honesty is hard to swallow. as far as name dropping goes... whatever, if someone went to art center they went to art center, get over it. i don't hold this up as a way of saying i'm better i've just said i can attest to the fact that it's a great school with great instructors.

It's not a tower, it's an island. And the sand is black.

I am not politically correct. I never said we don't need teachers. I have dug deep into functionality in these past 5 years (with no ArtCenter teachers to distract me), but I am not entrenched: I can -and do- change my mind when it makes sense. This does not preclude seeming dogmatic, for better or worse. I think practicing what one preaches is a luxury, subject to circumstance: a chain smoker can sincerely tell his son to not start smoking.

You are seeing what you want to see.

hhp

we are all seeing what we want to see in some degree. as you have posted your innocence to my accusations i could and did do the very same. i think we both lie in the middle of the teacher student debate. the fact is that we are both presenting extremes to cow the other into a position that we incorrectly think they are not seeing.

i present an extreme of character in this forum as do you . the reality is that we most likely both understand the conceptual middle ground. this is what makes things heated here because the other perceives this as a personal attack of sorts.

a few more responses to Jay (and these will be my last
for this thread)...

"as soon as you start saying institutions like art center
have no merit you discredit any of these topics that we
are talking about. they all survive on the same ideals."

quite a claim! would you mind elaborating? as it stands,
I would say your *realism* has turned to shear folly.

"general consensus becomes cultural fact. it doesn't
matter if it is scientifically true or not it is true to the
culture and that is what matters at the moment."

general consensus never _becomes_ fact -- it either is
or is not. for instance (in an effort to stay on track), if a
more readable alphabet falls into disuse and the
average reader no longer recognizes it, it is no less
intrinsically readable, it has simply been [possibly] lost.

"this can be illustrated by the culture of of the 1950's
when maybe 90%, or so, of america believed that god
actually was real. it did not matter that science would
make major movements to over throw this idea (or at
the very least drastically alter it) latter on changing the
reality of culture."

actually science gave their utmost efforts to
overthrowing the idea only to come to the conclusion
that there must be some supreme being.

"i'm just a realist who says they are the truth at the
moment as far as you and i are concerned and that's all
that really matters."

actually, I would say you're more of a cultural relativist.
for one, a realist wouldn't go on for this long trying to
convince this obsessive lot of anything! ;)

"you guys are a sorry lot."

your aforementioned respect for this sorry lot is crystal
clear.

"the greatest thing about art center though is that you
can come into forums like this drop the name and watch
everyone stir up like a hive of bees."

I think you're misunderstanding our distaste of your
name-dropping as proof of validity for a distaste for Art
Center. I, and probably most others here, have nothing
against Art Center.

It's good of you to admit being an extremist. I am not.

hhp

>>my guess is that you are having internal struggles with you own ego and out right honesty is hard to swallow

Hey less than a dozen lines, and you can tell all that about me. Wow you're some analyst.

>>whatever, if someone went to art center they went to art center, get over it
I was never, ever anywhere near being under it.
Your failure to understand, and believe, this simple, honest truth will demonstrate to most, but obviously not to you, just how far out of your depth you are.

hrant, you most certainly are. and like i've stated i'm a realist who has been perceived by you few to be some sort of extremist. what makes me less of an extremist then you is that i can honestly admit the short comings to it all e.g. design and typography are insignificant. this doesn't mean i don't love them it just means they don't matter. you seem to struggle with these sorts of things because they take you off of your pedestal if only for a brief moment.

plain cloths...
>actually science gave their utmost efforts to overthrowing the idea only to come to the conclusion that there must be some supreme being.

please...this is just plain wrong. i'll use everyone else's argument when i say that this is your opinion. i think my opinion on this topic is obvious.

as far as your other points, things like the "sorry lot" issue you need to lighten up these are honest jabs said with good intentions.

with the whole name dropping thing, like i said before get over it. this came out as a relevant issue in some post of mine way back. it is the lot of you that have had such an issue with it. and these stupid accusations only continues to prove this.

steven, i think the under it or over it issue is obvious as far as you are concerned. the fact still remains that you care more about this issue then i do. if you think i don't understand these ramblings, you are fooling yourself. they are quite easy to grasp. and on top of it all your meager attempts to discredit are sad.

You are losing. Face it, and adjust.

hhp

???

you really think so? why? i seem to be holding up just fine. just because a few people don't fully understand what i've been saying or read too much into things does not mean anyone is losing. i don't really think these sorts of things are about winning or losing. i would hope you don't either. because that's just wacky. but we are both wacky guys talking about such stupid things as typography, right?

Prediction:
Your failure to understand, and believe, this simple, honest truth will demonstrate...
Outcome:
Your last post

Hey, I can see into the future...
Oh no, its just that you're tiresomely predictable.
I'm sure you'll come up with something else, but
I'll waste no more of my time on you.

steve, of course it's predictable, simple honesty should be.

So, Mr. Wilkinson... do you plan on attending TypeCon this year?

it looks pretty fun. money is always the question though when it comes to travel. we shall see... what about yourself?

Yes, I'll be presenting.

I am keen to meet everyone here, especially since I have zero face-to-face contact with typophiles where I live. There are a few, it's just that circumstances have thus far prevented it. These forums are cool, but I'm a coward and generally consider it safer to talk informally in a forum where my comments are not preserved forever in a permanent record of my ignorance.

This is sidetracking again, but I don't feel too guilty about it, simply because Helvetica is only so interesting. Just get the OsF if you have to use it in text, that's all I ask. Better yet use AG Old Face or FF Bau.

john, let me extend a warm welcome then. you should feel more then welcome speaking up in these forums. the're a blast. just watch out for hrant <joke>.

that's great that you are presenting. what are you going to be covering?

"going to the best schools in the world guarantees that you will be taught by the best. these institutions draw those kinds of professors. it's just plain stupid to think other wise. what they don't do is guarantee that students graduating will themselves be great. just that they will have been taught by the greats of their time."

jay

I'm on the faculty at Art Center. Most of the faculty at Art Center are simply working professionals recruited locally. Most of them are part-time faculty working for what we call in Southern California, "freeway teaching wages." Otis and Cal Arts pay their part-timers relatively about the same. (A bit less for Otis, a bit more for Cal Arts.) I've also taught at these institutions. The institutional take on this is that part-time professionals bring their experience to the table as well as a willingness to contribute or to give back to society what they have been given. Which is greatly true, but is certainly not the entire picture.

Perhaps some of these folks are great, but are they "the greats of their time"? You are making a huge stretch here based on tuition costs without taking into account the reality of the economics involved.

Plus Gerald is being diplomatic.

hhp

gerald, this has been discussed in the past as well. as far as pay for teachers is concerned i think that has little to do with why instructors choose to work for an institution like art center. pay scale is not very relevant to the merit of the institution. you yourself are teaching their and probably enjoy a certain amount respect that comes with being an instructor at art center. like i said before, art center draws great instructors because of this. i know there are exceptions and i don't think we need to hear the few that exist e.g. some so so instructor in room 135 is really pretty bad. we all know those exist in any institution but it still does not dispute the fact that this is one of the best design schools. as far as "the greats of their time" i do in fact think many are and so do others. professors like doyald young, for example, are masters of their craft and art center is a haven for these types of individuals.

hrant, i think we are all being pretty diplomatic here.

Imho, genuinely good instructors wouldn't teach at a well-known school merely because of the respect and prestige that attach to it. A genuinely good instructor would be passionate enough to share their knowledge and experiences to any willing students, any day, not just to the elite. As we Chinese say: "those who teach and those who learn grow together." I think we have to realize that teachers are not gods, and students are not always ignorant. One can never be too young to teach nor too old to learn.

keith, we agree in ways but you are missing what i've been saying. great instructors teach at a lot of different places, that's for sure. a lot of it depends on where you live and or are willing to move but you can't try and tell me that if you had the opportunity you wouldn't teach at art center the whole while feeling highly validated for your time and efforts. i think you guys know you are being unrealistic and idealistic here. i know we all want to feel warm and fuzzy here like everybody's equal and there are no better than or bests but that is simply just not true.

Think what you want, but don't keep making assumptions about other people's points of views or values. It's not about feeling warm and fuzzy or anything, it's about respecting others when you make your comments. It's not what you say I have trouble with, but how you say it. You just come across as a snob, that's all. If you have no intention of talking about typography and design but take pleasure in pushing other people's buttons for the sake of it, then I don't think this is the right place to do it. This is my last post here.

>> you can't try and tell me that if you had the opportunity

I'll bite. I personally would rather teach at VCU, or Pratt, or Parson's, or Cooper, or Harvard, or MIT, or Yale, RISD, or CCAC, or Reading, or RCA, or GSA, or Sorbonne, or IIT, or ... Hmmm ... The traffic in LA is enough to make not want to live or work down there. More power to those that do.

man this is a hot topic. we should start a new chat room and call it "art center is it good or is it bad?" everybody come watch a lowly graduate fight off the barbaric hordes. watch him face his biggest challenge yet a disgruntled faculty member.

tiffany, i couldn't agree more. Los Angeles was a horrible place to live. it actually makes for a really powerful learning experience though. almost heightening the fact that a gem like art center can exist is such a rotten cesspool.

keith, i didn't notice your last post and just read it. i'm sorry you feel that way. you know how i feel about these issues. and for me this has become more about the fact that people have trouble talking frankly. i'm sorry but you guys would struggle in a place like NY. i'd love to start talking about type again if i didn't have to keep defending the harsh realities of the world.

"we should start a new chat room and call it "art center
is it good or is it bad?" everybody come watch a lowly
graduate fight off the barbaric hordes."

this is really getting over the top now... a new thread!?

Jay is proud of his school, we all think that's neat. can
we move on now and encourage this fiery fellow to
make some useful contributions to our many other
great threads?

my inbox is exhausted!

wow... you just really don't get it do you plain clothes. you guys all have no sense of humor and that's just plain sad. let me spell that one out for you. get it plain clothes and plain sad. i made a funny.

i agree with you fully though. we should all change the subject and start talking about a different lofty ideal... like typography.

Bulletin for Teachers:

There is a youthful infection, like chicken pox, technically known as IWC, Infatuation With Coolness. In most cases it does no lasting harm and is even sometimes fun while it lasts. But in some sad cases it becomes a terminal illness. The danger signs are a combination of arrogance and cluelessness. While this still is not enough for a definite diagnosis, you should act immediately. If it progresses to the point where the subject thinks that it's cool to avoid capital letters, it may be too late. Teachers take warning, and treat IWC in the early stages!

william... that's weak. coolness has not even entered the equation. as far as capital letters are concerned that's done because i'm a little lazy if lazy is cool (last time i checked it was not) then great. at least i don't have a picture of myself as an icon. there's some real ego involved with that whole bag.

where's your picture?

i agree ethan. hey, you better watch out though i just noticed that you don't use caps. you might have this wierd infection i just heard about.

the more love that "I" can spread the better. or at least that's what my mommy tells me.

DESIGN ROCKS!

i've noticed a design trend lately and i would like some advice on whether or not to follow or "zag".

i noticed a plethera of magazines, not just desing mags that the new look is that whole" i've been doing coke for three days and haven't washed my hair look." along with hand written type that looks scratchy and ununiform. i know that that is a sweet look to go for and everything and that whole subculture of non-druggies trying to look like druggies is cool... but let's get over this and make design that matters.

please some one advise me on how to turn the market to just plain simple clean graphic design~!

using caps is totally overated JAY, i noticed you don't use them either. my infection is green what color is yours?

it's green too. this could be trouble. i actually dig it because it is ultra utilitarian to strip the formal system of writing down to as bare bones an endeavor as possible. who needs caps. they are such a convention or stylization of the past

ethen, in reply to your other post which i neglected to see initially. you bring up an age old question here <joke>. design and style are very interrelated. i know many here would tell you that you should pay no attention to trend and just follow the standards that have been passed down for years (which were in fact just trends at some point themselves) but i think this is unrealistic. your job as a designer is to provide a service to your client. in many cases but not all that can be to zig instead of zag. this is an attempt to help them stand out. as far as the trend you are sighting, it really depends on how large it is and how entrenched your client is or should be in relation to it. weather to follow a trend or forge a new trend is very dependent on this issue. that being said there is also the element of the designers personal voice. i think this is important too. you need to love what you do and clients in the end will love you because of it. nobody likes a zombie robot that produces something with no soul. anyway i guess that's a good enough start on such a huge topic.

Tonight, I am that little bit happier not to be a graphic designer.

hhp

yes, it would be wonderful to have little real challenge by simply being just a typographer but then you realize you need to make a living.

say that any of us were to create that amazingly asthetic typeface that would be remembered for years to come... and such professors lets say at...well art center, were to say, " so and so" designed this face back in...fill in the blank.

or

would you rather be that graphic desinger who used type as a vehicle to do other great pieces. as if you were know for an array of works, not just one imaculate typeface.

me personally would rather be an all around mature designer that used elements of design to compose real works of art. am i allow to label design as "ART'." to make a living and to do what drives me as a person to put beauty into the world... that communicates not only to designers but the general public as well.

It's strange that you think type only communictes to designers. Only designers who ignore craft think type is made for them. Some of the best design work relies very heavily on the type.

As for what I personally prefer: I would ideally like to make the best type the world has ever seen (I would like to surpass Granjon - it's a dream, hey), and be recognized for that by my peers. I don't give a rat's arse who uses the results, mostly because participating in this Cool Capitalism (which I admit to having to do to some extent, but a lot less than the average graphic designer) reduces my appetite. I'd rather not help sell CRAP to the same vultures who drive their gold Cadillac Escalades to the latest Hollywood releases.

hhp

What a great discussion! Sorry to have been travelling. First of all, a little historical perspective -- I was there, boots on the ground (joke), when Neue Haas Grotesk was introduced. I thought it was heaven-sent. The only guy setting it in the US soon thereafter was Roy Rothstein of Type& Art in Cleveland. Up until then the only decent sans serif we had was News Gothic. In Europe there was Akzidenz Grotesk. I simplify but only because there's enough text posted here already. When my 25-year hitch with Polaroid ended and they decided to do all the design in-house, converting everything to Helvetica, my parting shot was "Congratulations, your typeface can be seen on every airport toilet throughout the free world."

Even so, Helvetica is a usable face, Avante Garde an abomination. It simply can't be read. NHG when set by the Swiss was eminently readable in at least three languages.

Thirdly, there is a difference between being educated and learning. My late Mass. Art schoolmate and friend, Jacqueline Casey, blossomed as a great designer at MIT in spite of a ho-hum curriculum. The same can be said of her colleague, Muriel Cooper. I think it's all about intellectual curiosity, and if one doesn't have it, it doesn't matter where he or she has been "educated."

I like it, I don't, like it, don't, like it, don't, like it, don't, like it,.....don't,... like it?

It's like women(or in some cases men), you can live with or without it.

Whoa there,
Seven fingers. Don’t make me break those two extras by punchin you in the nose. I happen to be a New Media Designer (which I agree is a strange title) but you have to admit it’s much easier to say than mutidisciplinary proponent of aesthetics specializing in the application of current and emerging methods of application. Did you ever stop to think that the reason NMD’s use helvetica so much is because they are getting paid to do so. I’m sorry but I have to quote snoop dogg when I say “Don’t hate the player hate the game.” I also am a bit miffed about the over saturation of the media and over use of certian techniques but you have to remember that these old washed up art directors are looking for those “catch phrase” designers to do something “hip” and “new” but then force them to copy eachother. I’d have to say that if you want to gripe talk to the old farts who still use Quark and lay everything out in sabon about loosening the reigns and letting us go to town. I promise you I would never use Helvetica again if I could make the same money using cabinet, or eiko, or damske, or Chola, or..you get the point.

As another so called ’New Media Designer’ I just thought I’d offer my perspective.

“New Media Designers” work on the screen. Only a fool would ever set text for reading in Helvetica on screen as it would be even less legible than it’s printed counterpart. Reading off the screen is a bitch full stop - why make it more painful?

Helvetica Neue is a useful display face. For people like myself it’s a great way to get into display typography because it has so many different weights and variants. If you’re ten years older than me you’ll hate it because it was old hat when you were a young designer.

What I like about Helvetica these days is its blandness. I a design surrounding where Kievit, Thesis et al have become the new Helvetica in their everyday use, I think a relatively underdesigned font such as Helvetica has a certain simplistic flair, a stupidness for lack of better words, that just works. Same goes, to a lesser degree, for DIN, for Courier and for some other fonts. Absurdely, feel the same way about Garamond these days. Grossly overused, I find myself using it more and more often, because it IS so commonplace. Much as I love well-done typophile fonts and always hunt for notoverused serif and sans-serif typefaces, I find myself coming back to Helvetica (or similar-looking fonts such as FFBau, Galaxie Polaris or RKW Sans, which is a remix of Helvetica BQ we did with URW++) and Garamond again and again. I recently did a book-design and used Franklin for that, a font I haven’t touched in well over a decade. But its crude mixture (in my mind) of simplicity and america-advertising-noise aswell as a certain Kalmanesque feeling made it the only viable option. Sometimes the wrong font is really the only right choice. Maybe I’m just tired of the delicateness of all these new, well-done typefaces and look for something clumsy and plain and stupid and honest?

HD Schellnack

PS:
As an example, I work on flyers, a brochure and a flash-based Site for suchthilfe.direkt, a local drug-aid and habilitation center. My idea is that, well, drugs and their usage is overdramatized in the media. I didn’t want to show junkies and opted instead for something that struck me during the days of research and photoshooting in their facilities: It’s mostly a very efficient, very bureaucratic job they do. The whole streetworker-cliché I had in mind just doesn’t hold true, they’re justr professionals doing their best in their field. It’s all pretty banal, it LOOKS and FEELS banal. And that, imo, was good.
So we took very very nondescript photos, very downscale, very everyday. I wanted to emphasize that drug-abuse and thus drug-aid is normal, is mundane, is a job like everything else. Instead of showing the fear-inducing imagery of other campaingns, I opt for, more or less... a kind of down-to-earthiness :-D

And damn, I spent WEEKS deciding on the design and the typeface. Frustrating, annoyinbg weeks. It all still felt too much like advertising, it pushed up too many emotions, it jst did not feel cool enough, bland enough, simple enough.

The final design is as simple as can be and the typeface, of all the choices available, is UNIVERS. definitively not a typeface I use often these days. Univers... simple, honest, straightforward. No real ligatures, no OSFs, no Caps, overused and still kind of the ugly girl at the dance party. And it fit perfectly.

And it’s quite often the same with Helvetica. The bad font is sometimes the only viable option.

HD Schellnack

I agree with kfur 100%.

You know why I use Helvetica? Because there’s only 8-10 other fonts I can choose from when designing a website and I avoid Microsoft’s cop-out, Arial whenever possible. When I do print work, that’s a completely different story.

ack. who resurrected this thread? i think using helvetica when designing with only css/xhtml is acceptable. but i don’t think it is always/ever/usually/often appropriate in print design or even web design when using tech such as flash and/or images of other kinds.

for Helvetica lovers, another Helvetica shirt (well potential shirt; it’s up for vote at Threadless)

http://threadless.com/submission/53103/Ice_Cold

random thread bump