3 ms·

There is no reason to omit the crossbars. Capital "i" has crossbars; every elementary-schooler knows this. Why select a font with an ambiguous character in hop

There is no reason to omit the crossbars. Capital "i" has crossbars; every elementary-schooler knows this. Why select a font with an ambiguous character in hopes that you'll never encounter a situation where it's unclear... and then face a dilemma when it is? Simply select a properly-designed font in the first place, and all use-cases will be served.

crazygringo 4y ago
Elementary-schoolers write their lowercase a's as single-storey while typography nearly universally uses double-story. They write their lowercase g's as single-storey while fonts often use double-story. And they write their uppercase Q's using a tail that crosses the bowl, rather than one carefully underneath, as if often used in typography. So I wouldn't rely on how elementary-schoolers write as a guide for typographic design. In any case, there is a perfectly good reason to omit the crossbars, which is consistency. They are essentially serifs, and it's totally inconsistent to use serifs for just one out of 52 letterforms and not on the remaining 51. Putting crossbars on an I is like a bar through a 7, a slash through a zero, or a bar through a Z. It's a hack for enhanced legibility but it's ugly. It's noisy. It's distracting. We do it in handwriting or in monospaced code fonts when required, but not for professional-looking body text. Sometimes the more aesthetically pleasing choice is the best one, which is something "proper design" takes into account.
- BuckyBeaver 4y ago
  Those other examples are invalid because they do not distinguish between letters. And no, the crossbars are not serifs, any more than the horizontal line of a capital G is a serif.
- enw 4y ago
  Consistency is great, but why exactly is consistency helpful in this case? Seems surprisingly defensive to not be in favor of a small change that eliminates an entire category of confusion and improves accessibility.
  - tgv 4y ago
    Fonts are for reading. Consistency in some formal aspect doesn't help that goal per se, because all letters are different and have to recognized as such quickly. Relying on context to disambiguate is a serious short-coming: it slows down reading, and causes possible errors. There's really no way to defend two letters being virtually identical.
- clord 4y ago
  Are they serifs? On serif fonts the bars themselves get serifs. They are more like the bar on capital G or the cross bar on capital A.
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    Yes, they are functionally serifs. If they were "proper" bars that were an integral part of the letterform, then in a serif font there would be crossbars on the uppercase i that would then have ending serifs themselves, such as you find at the top of a T. But obviously those aren't there. So yes, they function entirely as serifs, not like bars in other letters.

crazygringo 4y ago

Elementary-schoolers write their lowercase a's as single-storey while typography nearly universally uses double-story. They write their lowercase g's as single-storey while fonts often use double-story. And they write their uppercase Q's using a tail that crosses the bowl, rather than one carefully underneath, as if often used in typography. So I wouldn't rely on how elementary-schoolers write as a guide for typographic design. In any case, there is a perfectly good reason to omit the crossbars, which is consistency. They are essentially serifs, and it's totally inconsistent to use serifs for just one out of 52 letterforms and not on the remaining 51. Putting crossbars on an I is like a bar through a 7, a slash through a zero, or a bar through a Z. It's a hack for enhanced legibility but it's ugly. It's noisy. It's distracting. We do it in handwriting or in monospaced code fonts when required, but not for professional-looking body text. Sometimes the more aesthetically pleasing choice is the best one, which is something "proper design" takes into account.

BuckyBeaver 4y ago
Those other examples are invalid because they do not distinguish between letters. And no, the crossbars are not serifs, any more than the horizontal line of a capital G is a serif.
enw 4y ago
Consistency is great, but why exactly is consistency helpful in this case? Seems surprisingly defensive to not be in favor of a small change that eliminates an entire category of confusion and improves accessibility.
- tgv 4y ago
  Fonts are for reading. Consistency in some formal aspect doesn't help that goal per se, because all letters are different and have to recognized as such quickly. Relying on context to disambiguate is a serious short-coming: it slows down reading, and causes possible errors. There's really no way to defend two letters being virtually identical.
clord 4y ago
Are they serifs? On serif fonts the bars themselves get serifs. They are more like the bar on capital G or the cross bar on capital A.
- crazygringo 4y ago
  Yes, they are functionally serifs. If they were "proper" bars that were an integral part of the letterform, then in a serif font there would be crossbars on the uppercase i that would then have ending serifs themselves, such as you find at the top of a T. But obviously those aren't there. So yes, they function entirely as serifs, not like bars in other letters.