Apple resident Neue Helvetica Font / alternative Neue Helvetica source – confusion

[Tony Pritchard]

TYPOGRAPHIC HELP! Any thoughts? Neue Helvetica is a resident font on Apple. As such it cannot be disabled, deactivated, hidden, deleted, removed. The system and Font Book do not have the complete family. This means you have to have another version /source. Herein is the confusion. Both will display in font lists within software. This means you could inadvertently end up with a mix of sources. Apple displays as light, bold, etc The other source displays as the numerical system 45, 65, etc. Adobe InDesign seems to display using the numerical system and therefore which one are you actually using? Affinity Publisher mixes everything up with two lists of Neue Helvetica in the list. If you have both open then Font Book will alert you to the issue that you have 'multiple' copies open. Multiple suggests lots and not two sources. Confused? I'm not sure there is any way around this. Am I wrong?

[v_kyr]

See also older posts about that theme aka the "Helvetica Neue" font ...

• Related forum threads

[lacerto]

Obsolete.

 

[Tony Pritchard]

Thanks Lacerto

It looks from your screenshot that your Apple and Adobe versions are in the same list but fortunately sorted out. Mine are a little bit mixed up between the two sets. I don't know what the original source is. I used to work at a University where the Adobe license and typefaces were taken care of. I've left now and the laptop was taken back and the account closed. Hence the move to Affinity. The source of the other typeface might be someone who I worked with who artwork a publication and then packaged the job so I could check it. That person unfortunately died. So am figuring things out. I can't deactivate the Apple resident fonts so they have to appear. Both my sources appear in Publisher so maybe I just need to take more care selecting and then check fonts when packaging for output. Whilst the Publisher displays the fonts. Font Book alerts that there are multiple copies. Maybe this doesn't mean much. Screen shots attached. Of course I could delete my other source and buy a new set from Font Shop (£165). I think the same thing will happen in that the Apple Version will display alongside the bought version.

[lacerto]

Obsolete.

[kenmcd]

5 hours ago, Tony Pritchard said:

It looks from your screenshot that your Apple and Adobe versions are in the same list but fortunately sorted out. Mine are a little bit mixed up between the two sets. I don't know what the original source is.

The versions you have were probably found thru a web search - and most of those are broken with name conflicts like this. There are no "HelveticaNeue" (no space) official fonts.

The macOS Helvetica Neue is also broken. It may work in Apple applications and most of Adopey apps, but it will never work properly in Word, LibreOffice, and apps like Affinity. Apple did this on purpose to prevent others from using their fonts.

Helvetica Neue LT Std (which is easy to find as it is in the old Adobe Font Folio 11) has a different family name so there will be no name conflicts like you have now. Same with Helvetica Neue LT Pro.

BUT, both of those font families are configured with multiple R/I/B/BI style groups (2), and Affinity apps do not handle multiple R/I/B/BI style groups well. The fonts may or may not work properly. They may appear to work and then you may have the wrong font(s) get embedded in a PDF.

One thing is for sure is you need to get rid of the broken non-macOS Helvetica fonts. They will continue to cause problems.

The Std or Pro or WG1 versions have different family names which will not conflict with the macOS versions. So they may work for you.

If you have something like TransType, you can rename the fonts to work properly (if you know what you are doing).

You may want to consider Helvetica Now. Being a much more modern font family it does not have the old numbered font naming issues, or the R/I/B/BI style groups naming issues. 

Or consider changing to one of the many free or less expensive options available now.

[Tony Pritchard]

Thanks kenmcd and lacerto for your responses. Appreciated. I'm not sure what R/I/B/BI is but I assume it is the way fonts are named. There is the Apple resident Neue Helvetica and the other one I have. The other one is from a legitimate source. It was from a designer I knew who was in a commercial studio and we would have used it on a print job when we were both working at a university. We are both Apple Mac users. A former colleague has also confirmed that system fonts clashing with external fonts is a common problem. Helvetica Now is a reasonable suggestion but is quite expensive now that i am retired. This version of NH https://www.myfonts.com/products/neue-helvetica-pro-basic-family-package-379965 is priced at £164 and is quite reasonable. My alternatives are buy this fresh. Push on with what I have on my system. Dig out my old computer and see what version I had back then which again I think will be legitimate. 

[lacerto]

Obsolete.

[lacerto]

Obsolete.

[Tony Pritchard]

Thanks for adding a lot of information to this thread. Affinity say they will continue to support Type 1 fonts for the foreseeable future. But yes time moves on. I'm a bit of a typographic minimalist so Light 45, Roman 55, Heavy 85 along with their italics will see me through. I tested Adobe and Google fonts along side Neue Helvetica and NH still stood up really well. Helvetica Now looks good but its family packages are more than I need and there is an attendant cost. Another thing I thought to try is to set up a small sample and package it for output and printing and then send it to the chosen printer to ascertain if there are actual issues. I'll keep the idea of a purchase in the books. I'll take a look at the font I have and PM you anything I can find out. Thanks!

[lacerto]

Obsolete.

[Tony Pritchard]

Thanks Lacerto for an informed and intelligent response. This naming '12 pt Helvetica* 55 Roman 05472' which is under Neue Helvetica is very confusing. It doesn't fill me with confidence as it seems to mix up different naming versions of Helvetica and Neue Helvetica. I am stalling on buying a new version with Monotype. I spoke to them this week and they advised four places to buy from. Their original price of £164 didn't include VAT so it's near £200. I don't want to make a mistake and repeat the known problems. Some of the retailers give technical details including the file name Font.com has things like HelveticaNeueLTPro-Roman.otf which I don't like as scrolling through a list of alternatives like this doesn't seem good. I prefer the numbering system of 45, 55, 65, etc. Linotype.com has this Neue Helvetica® Std 55 Roman although this might not be how it displays in the font list. With FontShop I can't see how the name will display. MyFonts doesn't list how the name will display in a software font list. I'm going to see if I can chat with MyFonts. I'll buy if it sorts the naming. 

[lacerto]

Obsolete.

 

[Tony Pritchard]

Thanks Lacerto. Had a reasonable exchange with Monotype. MyFonts, Fonts.com, Fontshop and Linotype are all related to Monotype so buying from any of them will hopefully be the same. The person did a test in Adobe InDesign but not Affinity. Attached is a screenshot of what displayed. In Affinity Publisher 2 you have Font Family in one drop down and the font style in the second drop down to the right of this. In your first image I am assuming you have clicked on the second drop down to the right of the first. maybe I am wrong it might be the first drop down to select Apple or LT.  In the list you have Helvetica (6) and Helvetica Neue (14) – I assume these are the Apple resident versions. Then the LT version is the Linotype one separated out. I've also attached a screenshot of my drop down like yours with the rogue font. I think the solution is to ditch the rogue font. Can't do anything about Apple. Then buy a new version from Monotype which hopefully will display the full range separate from Apple and make selection easier.  

[lacerto]

Obsolete.

[kenmcd]

It all works properly when the font developer follows current best practices for configuring the name fields inside the fonts. And the application works properly.

Issues affecting this...

Many old font families do not follow current best practices. The numbered font families fall into this category. 

Many fonts found out on the internet are broken - such as the no-space version you have.

More confusion is added by Helvetice Neue initially being released as Neue Helvetica (or those were Type 1 conversions, dunno) - and some of those are floating around out in the ether.

Helvetica Now uses modern naming best practices to avoid all of this.

Affinity applications do not handle style groups (R/I/B/BI) properly. They do not handle multiple R/I/B/BI groups properly (like in Helvetica Neue LT Std from AFF11). And they break the R/I/B/BI style linking by automatically setting the Bold button for any font weight above Bold (700). This also affects (breaks) other font families such as Avenir which I have previously discussed here in the forum.

Re Windows fonts - Windows only has one version if each font activated (even if multiples have been installed), and Windows applications read which font is activated from the Windows registry. Multiple font files may be present in the Fonts folders because if a font file is locked (because an app is using it) when a new version is installed, the new font file has a suffix added to the file name (underline and a number) and that one file is the font activated in the registry. Affinity applications appear to simply scan the Windows Fonts folders - and thus are confused by the multiple files for the same font name. Sometimes nothing appears in the font list. Sometimes the wrong font is embedded. Sometimes the text is garbled.

Helvetica Neue LT Std could be modified to work properly in Affinity applications (meaning so the Affinity apps do not screw it up).

 

[lacerto]

Obsolete.

[lacerto]

Obsolete.

[Tony Pritchard]

Thanks kenmcd and lacerto

I have a few statements from Monotype.

1) Richa states that these are sister sites under the parent company Monotype
https://www.myfonts.com/
https://www.fonts.com/
https://www.fontshop.com/
https://www.linotype.com/
So I would hope the same information applies to all sites and that their agents issue standard advice.

2) Arun (customer care MyFonts) states:
• System Helvetica font will appear as HelveticaNeue-Roman/Regular, whereas the fonts purchased from our website will appear as HelveticaNeueLT Pro-55 Roman. 
• Naming of Monotype fonts will distinguish them, as you can't deactivate Apple resident/system fonts.

3) Richa supplied me with this link that discusses OTF, TTF and CFF: https://www.linotype.com/8120/the-difference-between-cff-and-ttf.html

4) Interesting that one of the sister sites allows only one user whilst another related under the same parent company seems more generous. I'm on my own. 

5) I am a retired graphic designer and design educator. My typographic approach was fairly minimal eg one typeface, one change of size and one change of weight. I compared fonts over the years but Neue Helvetica always won out as a basic 'workhorse'. I used it as a standard no nonsense typeface for workshops until the clashes started happening and so for teaching we moved to Avenir. So long as there is reasonable pedigree I never really got hung up on the typeface thinking it's what you do with it that is important. Being retired I've almost got to start again. So I bought Affinity. And now I am closing in on a new purchase of Neue Helvetica.

6) Having stated the above this one seems a good balance of range and price: https://www.myfonts.com/products/neue-helvetica-pro-basic-family-package-379965

7) The book I am doing uses 45, 55 and 85 plus italics. As it is print it is likely that I'll do a print ready PDF. But usually you might package everything including the Fonts. I don't think Adobe allows this with their font library. I know Monotype license covers such things but somehow we have to function. I'll do my best to stick within the rules. 

Thanks for your help in this investigation as its been stalling me for a bit.

[lacerto]

Obsolete.

[Tony Pritchard]

• I will ditch my original non Apple version

• Monotype meant that the way they have named the fonts will be enough to distinguish them from Apple. I will not have to rename the fonts.

• Maybe the sister sites have different company names but as they are the same company Monotype then the ultimate deal should be the same.

• I hear that there are issues with the intrinsic Apple proprietary fonts. The Monotype version can be used for traditional print and isn't just a screen font. Monotype would provide fonts with original integrity (they own the company that designed the original) within one family from 25 to 95.

• The intrinsic Apple versions are very limited. I could use Light, Regular and Bold, but I don't think there is enough of a distinction between regular and bold. Extra bold is 75 and Heavy which I intend to use is 85. Neither are intrinsic to Apple. Monotype would provide the full range plus the italics.

[Old Bruce]

3 minutes ago, Tony Pritchard said:

The intrinsic Apple versions are very limited.

Here are the versions I have on my MacBook, these are the Apple versions.

[Tony Pritchard]

Thanks Old Bruce

[Tony Pritchard]

Hi Lacerto et al

I have had another exchange with MyFonts / Monotype, this time Veronica. 

• The font is called Neue Helvetica. The reason for Helvetica Neue in the display of fonts in the software is this: "the name has historical reasons - customers who had installed Helvetica complained they didn't find the Neue Helvetica (because it was listed under N, not under H ...). So Linotype decided to make the change in the name so that Helvetica and Helvetica Neue would be listed one after the other".

• There seems to be a lot of caution when talking license ie Monotype cannot comment on Apple. 

• I asked whether the intrinsic Apple fonts were the same as Monotype's. Veronica replied that Apple and Monotype are not the same fonts. 

• Veronica confirmed that the Monotype fonts would cover the needs for the traditional print book. I raised my concern that the answers didn't feel very straight. 

• I asked directly whether this font family would work and whether anything could go wrong https://www.myfonts.com/products/neue-helvetica-pro-basic-family-package-379965 Veronica replied "Affinity Publisher is a desktop application - so yes, you can use the desktop fonts in this application in order to create the documents for your book. Was that straight enough?"

• I am not sure there is much further I can go with this. I think I should take the risk and buy. 

[lacerto]

Obsolete.