4 ms·
that's neat (i can read it on my laptop screen no problems). years ago i tried to get a minimal font with no aliasing - it's 2 pixels wide (plus space) and visi
by andrewcooke 16y ago
that's neat (i can read it on my laptop screen no problems).
years ago i tried to get a minimal font with no aliasing - it's 2 pixels wide (plus space) and visible at http://www.acooke.org/minimal/ http://www.acooke.org/minimal/ and http://www.acooke.org/minimal/background.html http://www.acooke.org/minimal/background.html (but this cleartype approach is more readable - mine requires a lot of effort (note that it's best to read mine at its smallest size - making it bigger does not help because it relies on using shapes that look like they're blurred out at small sizes))
- jcw 16y agoI wouldn't say your font is completely readable, but each character is unique, so learning to read it would almost be like learning a new alphabet. Perhaps then one could read it fluently. After working on it, can you easily read text in your font?
- andrewcooke 16y agoIt was some years ago. I don't remember ever being able to read it easily and certainly can't now. The letter "c" was (and is) the worst ("z" too, but it's hardly used) - the problem is that there are too many small letters for the central 4 pixels. The best way I've found to "read" it is to learn "c" and then guess words given the context and easier letters...