What's wrong with Arial?
I should be more aware of typography stuff, but which font (and why) would you use instead of Arial for, say, the Headings and normal paragraph in a technical report?
I should be more aware of typography stuff, but which font (and why) would you use instead of Arial for, say, the Headings and normal paragraph in a technical report?
Regarding alternatives: "[...] Arial is permanently associated with the work of people who will never care about typography. You’re not one of those people. So use Avenir. Use Franklin Gothic. Use Gill Sans. Use one of the fonts listed in Helvetica and Arial alternatives [2]. Or use something completely different. But don’t use Arial. It’s the sans serif of last resort."
[1] https://practicaltypography.com/system-fonts.html
[2] https://practicaltypography.com/helvetica-and-arial-alternat...
And then I realised that it is much easier to my eyes than other documents and I cold not unsee it.
I still think that the default font is ugly, but when you have a longer document you cannot go wrong with LaTeX.
When you compare the result with the same doc, but written in Arial, it is painful. The Arial document is really more difficult to read.
I think that this is Knuth who said that a document is meant to be read, and not as an art display.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Modern
And the font itself was created by Knuth? Did Knuth invent like everything?
PS: Since I'm already citing Butterick in a sibling comment, I'm going to add another link here: https://practicaltypography.com/century-schoolbook-alternati...
I should point out that at least on my machine (latest macOS Safari), HN is rendered in a sans-serif font and shows them differently—the capital I has bars on the top and bottom. But, obviously, there are absolutely sans-serif fonts that do have this problem, Helveticarial among them.