Helvetica's Journey

Carl Shank • July 13, 2024

Back in October 2023 (Blog Oct. 19, 2023) I noted several professional typographers comments about Helvetica — In the July/August 1995 edition of Adobe Magazine, Robin Williams, a noted typographer, says Helvetica, though immensely popular in the 60s and 70s, became passé. Like the beehive hairdo, Helvetica is continuously used but creates a tired and dated look. He says, "Just because it's on your computer doesn't mean you have to use it. The greatest single thing you could do for your publications is to invest in another sans serif ("without feet") face, one with a strong, bold black version in its family. As with all trends, Helvetica will someday be back in style—in about two hundred years." He gives in another article some alternatives to Helvetica — ITC Franklin Gothic, Futura, Gill Sans and ITC Stone Sans as examples. And Daniel Will Harris in "Add Impact to Type" in the magazine Technique, March/April 1994 issue, suggests a wide range of alternatives to Helvetica — Agfa Roti's Sans, Avenue, Eras, Formata, Franklin Gothic, Frutiger, Gill Sans, ITC Goudy Sans, Lucida Sans, Optima, Shannon or Univers. We explored some of those substitute fonts at that point.


Helvetica's Journey. Helvetica derives its powerful simplicity and display qualities from the 1896 typeface Akzidenz-Grotesk. "The design originates from Royal Grotesk light by Ferdinand Theinhardt who also supplied the regular, medium and bold weights. Throughout the years, Berthold has expanded this extremely popular and versatile family. AG Super was developed in 1968 by Günter Gerhard Lange and is an excellent choice for headlines. In 2001, Günter Gerhard Lange added more weights for Berthold including Super Italic and Extra Bold italic." (MyFonts.com)


Martin Silvertant from medium.com cites three problems that have plagued Helvetica over the years. First, the original Helvetica face is not as contemporary as we would imagine, since it is a take-off from the 1896 Akzidenz-Grotesk face. Then, it is not that legible in small point sizes.

Note the original Helvetica on the left as it goes from large display to a smaller text size. The letters seem squeezed together and not very readable or legible. Legibility is the ease at which letters can be differentiated from each other. In the case of Helvetica, some characters are quite hard to tell apart. With its closed letter forms, it was simply a terrible choice for body text. Indeed, the renowned typographer, Robert Bringhurst, notes, "It would be possible, in fact, to make a detailed chart of lowercase letterforms, plotting their inherent resistance to letterspacing. . . . Around the middle of the list, we would find other unserifed faces, such as Helvetica, in which nothing more than wishful thinking bonds the letters to each other. (Robert Bringhurst, The Elements of Typographic Style, Hartley & Marks, 1992 edition, 31)  Consequently, we were advised to not use this typeface in textual materials. The advice was to use it as a sans-serif face in headline text and then use a suitable serif typeface for the text.


Max Miedinger from Linotype then sought to add some more readable quality to the Helevetica face, calling it Neue Helvetica — "Neue Helvetica® is a melding of aesthetic and technical refinements that result in superior design proportions, improved legibility and an expanded range of uses beyond the original Helvetica typefaces. Neue Helvetica World fonts enable the setting of pan-European languages, in addition to Arabic, Armenian, Cyrillic, Georgian, Greek, Hebrew, Thai and Vietnamese. The Cyrillic fonts include full support of the Unicode block, including characters for Bulgarian, Mazedonian, Serbian and Ukrainian." (MyFonts.com) Again, Bringhurst's critique is that "not all of these derivative Cyrillics can claim to be distinguished designs, and few are suited to running text." (Bringhurst, 206)


"Helvetica is a twentieth-century Swiss revision of a late nineteenth­ century German Realist face. The first weights were drawn in 1956 by Max Miedinger, based on the Berthold Foundry's old Odd-job Sanserif, or Akzidenz Grotesk, as it is called in German. The heavy, unmodulated line and tiny aperture evoke an image of uncultivated strength, force and persistence. The very light weights issued in recent years have done much to reduce Helvetica's coarseness but little to increase its readability." (Bringhurst, 93)

The third issue with Helvetica was its lack of proper hinting. Typeface hinting at its most basic level is "a method of defining exactly which pixels are turned on in order to create the best possible character bitmap shape at small sizes and low resolutions. Since it is a glyph's outline that determines which pixels will constitute a character bitmap at a given size, it is often necessary to modify the outline to create a good bitmap image; in effect modifying the outline until the desired combination of pixels is turned on. A hint is a mathematical instruction added to the font to distort a character's outline at particular sizes. Technically, hints result in operations which modify a contours' scaled control point co-ordinates before the outline is scan converted." (learn.microsoft.com) Rules are assigned to the typeface in terms of where each pixel is located, which depends on the size of the text and the resolution of your screen. In a Macintosh environment, the rendering engine takes care of the pixels. In a Windows computing context, how well typefaces render depends on the original hinting of the typeface itself. Both computing engines can produce blurry or unreadable results. The hinting of Neue Helvetica is better, but not as precise nor as well-defined as that in the Monotype face of Helvetica Now, noted above.


The font comparison chart to the right indicates the often missed, yet important legibility differences, in variations of Helvetica and how they compare with tradition Arial and the sans-serif font I like best, Formata. The obvious typeface difference among the fonts is that the Bold Formata font is decidedly bold, contrasting with the bolds of the three Helvetica samples as well as the Arial bold. To correct this, Helvetica in later additions added Helvetica Extra Bold and even Black.


Note the stem of the "G" in all three Helvetica font versions contrasted with the lack of a stem in the Arial "G" and the Formata capital "G." The Helvetica stems take their cue from the original Akzidenz-Grotesk 1896 font.


The little "tail" on the stem of the capital "R" is noticeable in both the original Helvetica and the Neue Helvetica fonts. However, it has been removed in the newer Helvetica Now edition. The Arial "R" is quite different than the Helvetica models. Note also the tail on the "a" in Helvetica renditions.


The "Q" in all Helvetica versions remain the same, but departs from its original Akzidenz-Grotesk rendering and certainly different than the Formata bold "Q." Note also the slant on the Arial "t" and the difference between its "1" and the Helvetica numeral "1" as well as the Formata "1."


The upper  "a" stem in the Formata font differs from the other font sample in that it is not as curled as them. The Formata ampersand ("&") is also constructed differently than the others.


While such differences may seem slight and even uninteresting, to the trained eye they are noticeable and make significant readable differences in overall legibility and appearance.

However, Helvetica never goes away. In fact, it has made a comeback in Monotype's Helvetica Now  font and the newest Helvetica Now Variable fonts, crafted by Max Miedinger, Charles Nix, NULL Monotype Studio, Friedrich Althausen, Malou Verlomme, Jan Hendrik Weber, and Emilios Theofanous. Faced with the demand to upgrade the face, these type designers wanted to maintain the original qualities of clarity, simplicity and neutrality "while updating it for the demands of contemporary design and branding. Helvetica Now comprises 96 fonts, consisting of three distinct optical sizes: Micro, Text and Display, all in two widths. Each one has been carefully tailored to the demands of its size —


"The larger Display versions are drawn to show off the subtlety of Helvetica and spaced with headlines in mind, while the Text sizes focus on legibility, using robust strokes and comfortably loose spaces. The Micro sizes address an issue Helvetica has long faced – that of being 'micro type challenged'. In the past, the typeface struggled to be legible at tiny sizes because of its compactness and closed apertures. Helvetica Now's Micro designs are simplified and exaggerated to maintain the impression of Helvetica in tiny type, and their spacing is loose, providing remarkable legibility at microscopic sizes and in low-res environments. There's also an extensive set of alternates, which allow designers the opportunity to experiment with and adapt Helvetica's tone of voice. This includes a hooked version of the lowercase l (addressing a common complaint that the capital I and lowercase l are indistinguishable) as well as a rounded G, and a straight-legged R, a single storey a and a lowercase u without a trailing serif. In the past, designers had to nudge, trim and contort the design to create stylish display-type lockups with Helvetica. Helvetica Now Display was designed and spaced with those modifications in mind—saving effort and providing more consistent (and more stylish) results." (from Monotype's website)


Then in 2021, more updates were made — "Helvetica Now 2.0 includes 96 fonts in three distinct optical sizes (Micro, Text, and Display), now with 48 new condensed weights. The Helvetica Now Variable fonts include even more: 144 instances—48 normal, 48 condensed, and 48 compressed. Helvetica Now Variable gives you over a million new Helvetica styles in one state-of-the-art font file (over two-and-a-half million with italics!)." The samples on the right give some idea of the power and strength of this new variable derivation of Helvetica Now.


"Each one of the Helvetica Now static fonts has been carefully tailored to the demands of its size. The larger Display versions are drawn to show off the subtlety of Helvetica and spaced with headlines in mind, while the Text sizes focus on legibility, using robust strokes and comfortably loose spaces. Helvetica Now's Micro designs are simplified and exaggerated to maintain the impression of Helvetica in tiny type. There's also an extensive set of alternates, which allow designers the opportunity to experiment with and adapt Helvetica's tone of voice. The new Condensed weights put more type into smaller spaces—for intense emphasis, sophisticated contrast, or just everyday space-fitting. Helvetica Now 2.0 is, quite simply, more: more versatility; more power; and more creative possibilities."


The sheer cost of this newer Helvetica font is prohibitive to the individual designer like myself and smaller typesetting offices. For larger firms with plenty of design use for different weights and styles of Helvetica, the Helvetica Now Variable fonts, in both regular text and italic, are eminently useful.

Successful Layout & Design

King James Bible Typography

By Carl Shank • April 7, 2026
The King James Bible (KJV), commissioned by King James 1 in 1604 and published in 1611, has been a profound Bible translation and masterpiece of beauty through the ages. It has been one of the most influential English translations of the Bible. Its history combines politics, religion, and literary achievement in early modern England. It has an elevated, poetic style that influenced many later writers. It has been prized for its literary beauty, historical continuity and memorability in public reading and worship (ChatGPT).

Responding to AI and Digital Babylon

By Carl Shank • April 6, 2026
Responding to AI and Digital Babylon H. Carl Shank April 4, 2026 Austin Gravley, a former Social Media Manager of The Gospel Coalition, and now the Director of Youth Ministry at Redeemer Christian Church in Amarillo, TX, is writing a book on AI and the digital revolution taking place. He compares this Digital Babylon and its captivity and its exiles to Christians living under the overwhelming influence of an active anti-Christian developing AI. Piecing together his comments with those of many others on the advancing scene of AI on our lives, several themes come to mind. First, AI is not God. While there are some in the Silicon Valley who might wish or see AI as a unifying, ontological force that can shape or rule our lives — the Super Machine —others remind us that this is only technology. And as advanced as AI is and becomes, God is still sovereignly in control of it and our lives. Jason Thacker, professor of philosophy and ethics at Southern Seminary and Boyce College, writes — “We must engage these issues, rather than respond after their effects are widely felt. But we don’t have to face today or tomorrow with fear. God is sovereign and his Word is sufficient for every good work, so we are able to walk with confidence as we apply his Word to these challenges with wisdom and guided by his Spirit.” ( The Age of AI: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity , Zondervan, 2020) A recent storm that darkened my community and scuttled Internet services reminded me of that. Even AI data centers, growing to over 3,000 in 2025 nationwide, are not immune to power disruptions and total blackouts. AI pundits may claim to have control procedures to keep the Internet and AI running cannot promise it to be so. We need to keep this in mind in the Digital Babylon age, as was needed to be kept in mind by Israel in the Babylonian Empire age in biblical times. Babylon went through many iterations, but will be defeated by God at the end of the day, as noted in Revelation. Digital Babylon will experience the same demise. This is not prediction, just Bible truth. We as believers need to hold on to such truth. Second, AI is still technology. Indeed, advanced and advancing technology, but not human. Matthew Schultz in a recent mereorthodoxy.com article notes— “Technology has existed since the Garden and is an integral component of our cultural mandate. We should also remember that one of the core distinctions between the Creator and his creatures is that we never create matter but merely (!) rearrange it. This becomes clear whether we consider an ancient farmer in Mesopotamia irrigating a plot of soil, a medieval peasant in Northumbria weaving a basket from flax, or a young musician in London taking the raw outputs of machine sound, adjusting its pitch, volume, and length, and incorporating it into a DAW loop. While there are all sorts of important distinctions and qualifications between pre- and post-industrial craft, there is no metaphysical distance between the two.” ( Artificial Intelligence Is A Technology , Feb. 26, 2026). AI may be the harbinger of a new Industrial Age, but though changes will be major and sometimes severe, the human side of the equation cannot be discounted or counted out. Part of my retired status as a pastor and theologian is that of a typographer restoring old type faces and doing a deep dive into the history of type. Two historical typographical truths stand out. Although the Renaissance age brought movable type from Gutenberg and others into the machine age, the typographical flair of those ancient scribes with pen-drawn exquisite type remained a stylistic standard. The second note is that with the Industrial Age, while affecting the quantity and speed of type development and printing, master type craftsmen rebelled against machine driven type for more organic typefaces. This was seen, for instance, in the type movement spawned by William Morris (1834–1896). William Morris was an Arts & Crafts designer who founded the Kelmscott Press (1891), reviving hand craftsmanship in printing. His work influenced the twentieth century private press and type revival movements. Lettering became a vehicle for breaking convention. Led by figures such as Morris, there was a decided reaction against industrialization, seeing machine-made goods as dehumanizing and ugly. Handcraftmanship, honesty in materials and utility fused with beauty made up much of what was called the Arts & Crafts Movement. That movement was rooted in medieval guild ideals and morality in design. (For an expanded history of type development, see “Advances in Typography: A Historical Sketch — Three Parts” in the blogs by CARE Typography, www.caretypography.com , Nov. 8, 2025, Nov. 18, 2025 and Nov. 20, 2025) Third, AI affects everyone everywhere. Austin Gravely, a former Social Media Manager of The Gospel Coalition, raises and answers the query — “’So what?’, you may think. ‘I’m not an Internet technician. I’m not a fan of AI. I’m not planning to change how I use the Internet. Why does any of this matter to me?’ To put it bluntly: you are naive if you think these disruptions won’t directly affect you, or indirectly affect you through the effect they will have on others. If the iPhone, social media, and AI have taught us anything, it is that you are impacted by these events regardless of whether you participate in them or not.” ( The State of the Internet: 2026 , mereorthodoxy.com, March 30, 2026) He goes on to say — “A changing Internet will change you. It will change you in ways you can see and in ways you can’t. It will change those you live with, work with, play with, build with, and fight with. It will change what is possible, probable, permissible, and prohibited in your life, your vocation, your church, your neighborhood, and any other physical space the Internet touches.” I recall my 99 year old mother who passed away a couple of years ago in a nursing facility. She was one of those survivors of the Great Depression and World War Two who dismissed the first moon landing and had her flat screen TV removed from her room for fear the government was watching. She lasted for nine years in the same private room in a modern nursing center. She was attended by doctors and nurses and staff who used AI on their computers and other care devices. She even had a modern digital phone removed from her room and refused to learn it. While she personally rebelled against her AI driven machine age, she could not escape those who used such technology for her care. We cannot isolate ourselves from AI and its advancing development, no matter how isolated we try to be. Fourth, AI can be either a blessing or a curse. Again, Matthew Schultz notes — “Our task is not to develop a unique theology of AI but to catechize our members into a people who can wield this technology without becoming captive to its internal logic. Like alcohol, artificial intelligence will become a test of character, a dangerous good that divides the foolish from the wise.” He says “Yet the greatest danger is both more pervasive and less obvious: AI is much more likely to be deployed as a multiplicative layer that allows ever more efficient micro-targeting of digital services and physical products by industries that already profit from compulsive behavior. The advent of hyper-personalized, real-time engagement strategies will require legislative safeguards, especially if AI leads to video advertisements generated in real time for an exhaustively mapped individual profile.” We must seek to “humanize” AI and employ it “humanly.” We must resist the phenomenological bent toward unbelief in AI development and pressures. We must once again learn to think critically and pervasively and biblically about AI. Our young people must be taught prescriptive critical thinking practices, rather than unwittingly and ignorantly giving in to what their phones and computers spit out. Church and ministry pastors must pastor rather than let AI bots plan, prepare and even give their sermons. We must learn to smartly negotiate with the “Magnificent Seven”— Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Nvidia and Tesla — rather than blindly following their lead. Convenience and speed must not be allowed to overtake and overcome careful, sustained and critical thinking and acting. “To give language to this change, we must take the best of Christian thinking regarding the social and political imaginary and apply it to the economic imaginary of life under the glowing shores of Digital Babylon, and that kind of work cannot be done with quick hot takes. It will take slow, deep, and thoughtful meditation to apply the riches of Christian thought to making sense of the companies that got us here and where they are taking us.” (Austin Gravley, The State of The Internet: 2026 ) I am both excited and wary of AI. I have learned to be much more cautious about social media and the videos and photos and information they give. Much of it has been and is being AI produced and tweaked. Spammers use AI technology to wrest thousands of dollars from unsuspecting senior citizens. Schools are requiring students to turn off their cell phones or “bag” them until after school hours because of the insidious nature of AI generated stuff. I value more and more of a face-to-face approach in teaching and learning and mentoring others. And we must adopt a state of “believing is seeing” rather than a non-Christian scientifically sanctioned “seeing is believing” approach to truth and justice.
Show More