I don't even know where to start with this post. Arial has its flaws (what font doesn't?), but to call it "a bad copy of Helvetica" is just plain wrong. If Ari

I don't even know where to start with this post. Arial has its flaws (what font doesn't?), but to call it "a bad copy of Helvetica" is just plain wrong. If Arial is a copy of Helvetica, then Helvetica is a copy of Akzidenz Grotesk, and so on. Traditional web fonts had their place and might still be a valid choice for some sites, but with higher resolution screens becoming more and more commonplace solely recommending "web fonts" no longer makes sense. If anything, Verdana and Georgia look clunky on retina screens (like they do in print), whereas classic fonts aimed for print have regained their subtle shapes and now look elegant on screens. Yes, Lucida has a larger x-height and thus looks 'more readable' to a lot of people — but only at the same pt size. I'm so used to Helvetica's word shapes and tight letterspacing, though, that I'll have to disagree on that as well.