10 ms·
Atkinson Hyperlegible Font
- rcarmo 2y agoNot bad. Can’t see if they have a fixed width version though.
- jdknezek 2y agoI made a custom build[1] of Iosevka[2] that chooses glyph variants based on Atkison Hyperlegible. I like it a lot and over time prefer it to the other Iosevka stylistic sets. [1]: https://github.com/jdknezek/Iosevka/blob/jdk/scripts/hypersevka.toml https://github.com/jdknezek/Iosevka/blob/jdk/scripts/hyperse... [2]: https://typeof.net/Iosevka https://typeof.net/Iosevka
- lambdaba 2y agoSounds very cool, could you upload a screenshot of it in action?
- indemnity 2y agoSince I discovered Iosevka a few years back it has been my daily driver for 80% of the time. I use other fonts from time to time but I always go back to my custom build of Iosevka. Yours actually looks a bit more readable than mine, gonna check it out your build plan. Thanks!
- ryukoposting 2y agoIt reminds me of IBM Plex, if you're just looking for similar looks.
- m463 2y ago> Please enter your email address to begin downloading.
- zamadatix 2y agoWhat's funny is on the same page they say it's on Google Fonts and you don't need enter an email (or have an account) to grab it from there https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Atkinson+Hyperlegible https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Atkinson+Hyperlegible
- theandrewbailey 2y agoAnd from Google Fonts, it's licensed under the Open Font License, not a unique one.
- Freak_NL 2y agoGood find. That makes their custom licence shown on their own website even weirder.
- vntok 2y agoThis sentence is indeed written on the linked page. What exactly is it that you want to express?
- t-3 2y agoIt's available as a package on all the linux and BSD distros I'm running.
- rossy 2y agoThey don't tell you you can put anything with an @ and a . in that field.
- sharpshadow 2y agoYea email fields without required verification get my maximum character length pseudo email.
- Heliodex 2y agoPretty awesome font, I've found it pairs really well with other readable fonts like Lexend too.
- sb057 2y agoWhile the characters are certainly distinctive, I find paragraphs to actually be less legible than, say, Times New Roman.
- alberth 2y ago> It improves legibility and readability Agreed. It seems to improve legibility. I'm not so sure it improve readability. Readability is largely influenced by the x-height (height of lowercase letter), because your brain is trying to discern the "shape" of a word - which allows you to read faster. Hence why ALL CAPS is difficult to read because the word shape is the same. Atkinson appears to have a high x-height, which reduces readability.
- prewett 2y agoI think SIL's Andika font [1] is designed with similar goals, although I think informed more by teaching reading. I didn't see any large samples, but the font seems a little subtler. Presumably, given the name, the Braille Institute's readers are more visually impaired than SIL's, so for those us with less impairment, maybe SIL's would be more readable? OpenDyslexic [2] is another interesting font. I've heard that asymmetry helps dyslexic readers, and (given a cursory glance) they seem to have done a good job having asymmetry and style. I've also heard that SIL's font is helpful for dyslexics, but that was a while back and now they have multiple font styles, so I'm not sure if the one above is the one or not. I didn't realize this until I worked on some software for dyslexic readers, but the normal computer font makes bdpq look pretty much identical except for rotation. It has a minimalist elegance, but for new/foreign readers, it's pretty subtle. I remember learning Chinese and had to spend quite some time with two characters, which differed only with one have a dot and one a short vertical line at top (a dot looks pretty similar to a vertical line at a cursory glance, as it is more inverted teardrop shape than a circle). After that the western alphabet looked a lot more uniform than I'd originally thought. [1] https://software.sil.org/andika/andika-and-the-visually-impaired/ https://software.sil.org/andika/andika-and-the-visually-impa... [2] https://opendyslexic.org/ https://opendyslexic.org/
- heymhm 2y ago
- jazzyjackson 2y agoSee also the font designed for readability* in Airbus cockpits https://b612-font.com/ https://b612-font.com/
- quesera 2y agoThe header image on that site seems to show two font variants (slashed-zero and non-slashed) in a single display. This puzzles me!
- aftbit 2y agoI see the slashed zero on the right, but I cannot find a way to get that out of the Google font display. Perhaps the slashed zero is actually a different font?
- jazzyjackson 2y agoFound a git issue that indicates the slashed 0 is in private use area of the font https://github.com/polarsys/b612/issues/20#issuecomment-544847156 https://github.com/polarsys/b612/issues/20#issuecomment-5448... To answer the grandparent, unslashed 0s are used in numerical figures (speed, pressure) while slashed 0s are reserved for the alphanumeric figures (headings and other idenitifers)
- quesera 2y agoI saw that usage pattern, but then noticed that zeroes in times are slashed. So, "slashed in strings even if non-alpha, but non-slashed in numerics, and times are strings"? Seems viable enough, but I'd choose consistency instead. :)
- jazzyjackson 2y agoI guess we'd have to get into whether clock time is ordinal or cardinal :^)
- spidermonkey23 2y agoIt's a good one to add as a custom font on Kindle/ebook devices
- RadiozRadioz 2y agoI did find it easy to read. But the font size on this website is also larger than average (at least on my mobile phone), so that is a variable that would have to be controlled first.
- jsheard 2y agoIt's on Google Fonts so you can use their type tester: https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Atkinson+Hyperlegible/tester https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Atkinson+Hyperlegible/test...
- amirmasoudabdol 2y agoIs there a monospaced version, or an inspired monospaced version based on this available?
- nh2 2y agoI need that too for hyper-OCR-able monospace labels.
- cromniomancer 2y agoNot that I've found, but I use Commit Mono alongside it with good results https://commitmono.com/ https://commitmono.com/
- keyle 2y ago"Safari download not working, try Firefox or Chrome" You gotta be joking.
- AbraKdabra 2y agoI know right? Who uses Safari nowadays?
- keyle 2y agoA website where a download link requires FF/Chrome. The whole website I thought was silly, but that takes the cake.
- Cyberdog 2y agoI looked at the code to see why it would be doing that. It seems to handle the font customization stuff by basically downloading all of the variants and then combining them into a zip file in client-side code - even when you do no customization at all. Apparently that code which makes the zip (which I'm guessing is an external library) creates a corrupted one when run in Safari according to a comment buried in the JS. Maybe it really is a bug on Safari's part but creating custom zip archives is something which would be far saner to do on the server side in the first place.
- knowitnone 2y agoHack font is pretty good and doesn't collect your email https://github.com/source-foundry/Hack https://github.com/source-foundry/Hack
- dang 2y agoRelated. Others? Atkinson Hyperlegible Font - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32799872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32799872 - Sept 2022 (234 comments) Atkinson Hyperlegible – a font by the Braille Institute designed for legibility - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28010540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28010540 - July 2021 (1 comment) Atkinson Hyperlegible Font - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26011945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26011945 - Feb 2021 (86 comments) Atkinson Hyperlegible Font - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25154417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25154417 - Nov 2020 (10 comments) Atkinson Hyperlegible Font - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24853550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24853550 - Oct 2020 (3 comments)
- jay_kyburz 2y agoYou know, this feature could be a little side bar on the top right, or just as a header for every post. (I assume its semi automated, but I would be happy to see it all the time)
- yesco 2y agoIsn't that the point of the "past" button though? I've always assumed the purpose of Dang's "related" comments were to help bridge the discussion.
- deepfriedbits 2y agoIt seems as if the past button allows you to view a snapshot of the site on a given day, whereas Dang's bundles are previous instances of the topic/link being discussed on HN.
- shepherdjerred 2y agoThere is also a past button for submissions
- xanth 2y ago
- omoikane 2y agoAtkinson Hyperlegible appears to slash their zeroes in the same direction as backslash, unlike all other fonts I have used where the slash in slashed zeroes have the same direction as a forward slash. Not sure if this was a deliberate design choice. https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Atkinson+Hyperlegible?preview.text=0O1Il https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Atkinson+Hyperlegible?prev... https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Inconsolata?preview.text=0O1Il https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Inconsolata?preview.text=0...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- commodoreboxer 2y agoThanks for pointing this out. It looked weird to me, but I couldn't quite put my finger on why.
- zinekeller 2y agoProbably since that it's intended for legibilty, it's to differentiate 0 from Ø.
- a_e_k 2y agoI used a reverse-slashed zero in my programming font [1][2] for exactly that reason. I wanted it to be clearly distinct from an O with stroke (and by more than just the slash not extending past the bowl). [1] http://eastfarthing.com/luculent/ http://eastfarthing.com/luculent/ [2] https://usemodify.com/fonts/luculent/ https://usemodify.com/fonts/luculent/
- fsckboy 2y ago>it's to differentiate 0 from Ø [a letter used in Danish, Norwegian] most importantly it's to differentiate it from ∅, mathematical null set. "computer people" feel this understandable need to differentiate their zeroes, but "CS-is-math people" are like "but don't use null set!" <— ᵇᵘᵗ ʸᵒᵘ ʲᵘˢᵗ ᵘˢᵉᵈ ᶠᵃᶜᵗᵒʳᶦᵃˡ
- 2y ago
- DiscourseFan 2y agoI understand if this is supposed to be better for dyslexics, but the fact that the distinctions of the letters are so heavily emphasized makes it harder to read, since I generally read entire words at a time, not letters, and the individual letters are less important than how they look together in a word or a sentence.
- SSLy 2y agoconsider https://www.oliviaking.com/inclusive-sans https://www.oliviaking.com/inclusive-sans
- bmicraft 2y agoI really dislike them having lower L just be a straight bar - And I'm saying that as someone that hates serif fonts with a passion. It doesn't really help you while reading that capital letter i looks different. You have to (1) know which font you're currently reading and (2) know that a straight bar isn't a capital i. This is kind aggregated by the fact that I'd naturally assume if only one letter looked like that it would be capital letter i. An assumption that is backed by this very website: I, l
- marginalia_nu 2y agoPersonally I find Comic Sans easiest to read, as dyslexic. I even use a monospace version of the font for coding and in the terminal.
- russfink 2y agoWould that by chance be the Pointfree font?
- marginalia_nu 2y agoDunno. It's just called Comic Mono. https://dtinth.github.io/comic-mono-font/ https://dtinth.github.io/comic-mono-font/
- burningChrome 2y agoI like this idea, but for most companies, they've already decided on their fonts and many corporations already have strict guidelines on what fonts to use and many are either variants of popular fonts, or changed in some way that aligns with their branding. I still think its a good step forward.
- hinkley 2y agoMy go-to is Verdana based on previous empirical tests. It's bigger at the same pt size compared to other fonts, but if you size it down about 1/12th it is just as legible but at a higher characters per inch, which is good for trying to squeeze text into an interface, especially when that interface may be viewed by a group on a projector or screen share. I just tried to half-ass a similar test by editing the Google Font explorer UI to put them next to each other. Atkinson beats out Verdana for width, by about 4% (eyeballed and envelope math), however it's also 1 pixel taller per line at that size. So it's a more rectangular font. I'd have to think about how I'd want to use it, if I care more about lines per page or characters per column.
- ComputerGuru 2y agoIf you’re a Verdana fan, you might appreciate this write up I did on it some years back: https://neosmart.net/blog/tahoma-vs-verdana/ https://neosmart.net/blog/tahoma-vs-verdana/ It backs what you say!
- hinkley 2y agoI don’t recall why Tahoma didn’t win. The letters may have been too close together for comfortable reading, resulting in the need for a larger point for the same comprehension. I mentioned above in another reply that we had one dissenter in the taste test, I think now that they may have voted for Tahoma.
- ComputerGuru 2y agoTahoma may be the HN font but for me Verdana is and forever will be “the Encarta font.”
- wild_egg 2y ago> My go-to is Verdana based on previous empirical tests. Do you have any handy links around this? I've a passing interest in information-dense UIs and font choice is a vital but often overlooked aspect of such interfaces. Would love to see how others evaluate such things.
- ghssds 2y agoIs there any peer-reviewed studies about this or are those claims unsubstantiated?
- barbegal 2y agoNo studies at all, all the claims are anecdotal at best.
- cormullion 2y agoThere is some research which suggests that the human brain “learns” to read an unfamiliar font reasonably fluently after about 30 minutes of use, and that recognition continues to improve with continued use. The well-known saying “we read best what we read most” suggests that a font itself contributes only partly towards readability - your personal habits and experience are also significant.
- aftbit 2y agoI found it amusing that the end user license agreement is available only as a PDF on Box. That's not exactly the most accessible format but I got it downloaded. It appears to be a relatively straightforward license, prohibiting commercial resale of the font and its derivatives, but allowing it to be bundled with commercially sold software. https://braileinstitute.app.box.com/s/rin3vzegmcy7sil28yfqslz2r5etv5nl https://braileinstitute.app.box.com/s/rin3vzegmcy7sil28yfqsl...
- hlieberman 2y agoIt's actually just the SIL font license, which is what basically every open source font uses. They just removed the preamble of it for some reason.
- Javalicious 2y agoYeah, I wish they would just keep the boilerplate OFL intact. I spent way too much time trying to figure out what the "real" license was, and if I could use it in my open source projects.
- Freak_NL 2y agoIt's obnoxious really, and borders on amateurism. If they want the OFL, then use the OFL. Don't make me try to understand yet another licence; I'm not a lawyer.
- Nemo_bis 2y agoInfuriatingly, they didn't actually use the same text but they introduced multiple tiny changes so that you're forced to check word-by-word whether it's still an open/free license. Was it really necessary to replace "Original or Modified Versions" with "The Original Version or Modified Version", or "Reserved Font Name(s)" with "Reserved Typeface Name"? So necessary that you're willing to sacrifice potential reuse?
- JamesCoyne 2y agoGoogle thinks it's OFL v1.1 https://github.com/googlefonts/atkinson-hyperlegible?tab=readme-ov-file#license https://github.com/googlefonts/atkinson-hyperlegible?tab=rea... But it also has a Reserved Font Name, so probably OFL-1.1-RFN going by the SPDX License List https://spdx.org/licenses/ https://spdx.org/licenses/ Kinda too bad they don't just state which license they're aiming for.
- nemetroid 2y agoThat’s one ugly Å, without any separation. The font looks nice in general though.
- Findecanor 2y agoIn my opinion as a native Swedish person (where that letter is part of our language), not separating the ring from the A is justified only when the font size is very small.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- zahlman 2y agoWeirdly, I got eye strain from that page. I think it's not the font itself to blame, but the combination of its default size in my browser with being #000000 on #FFFFFF - too much contrast.
- elric 2y agoSame here. That page is not very easy on the eyes, and that's with my brightness and contrast tuned for comfort.
- colonelspace 2y ago[flagged]
- padolsey 2y agoIt's BrailleInstitute, an org catering to those with visual impairments. Understandably, their site is accommodating to their core audience.
- colonelspace 2y agoIt's the internet, a venue catering to those capable of detecting a simple joke.
- Rhapso 2y agoSo, um, this website expects a nontrivial amount of their traffic to be sight impaired. It probably isn't designed this way for your benefit if this is your complaint.
- colonelspace 2y ago[flagged]
- ocular-rockular 2y ago[flagged]
- NelsonMinar 2y agoI appreciate that an expert institution designed a font for low vision readers with actual research. Every time I run an app that has OpenDyslexic as a font choice I die a little inside. It's the worst sort of "pretend to be helping" option. It actually is worse for reading than ordinary fonts. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5629233/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5629233/
- zharknado 2y ago> “OpenDyslexic was compared to Arial and Times New Roman in three reading tasks: (a) letter naming, (b) word reading, and (c) nonsense word reading.” Yikes, not a strong design IMO. I know very little about dyslexia, but reading individual words as a small child doesn’t seem like a comprehensive way to measure “how dyslexic people read.” Presumably the primary envisioned use-case for a specialized typeface like this is paragraphs of text, read by people who have the language skills to ”think in paragraphs,” even if the visual processing is a challenge. This is all armchair, I’d welcome correction or nuance.
- yababa_y 2y agoI guess I’m the rare duckling who would report preferring OpenDyslexic! IMO it scans better, and is excellent when combined with beeline reader. When I was at the ages of the sample, my lexile scores were through the roof, compared to the sample here which has poor to middling reading ability (typical for dyslexia) — i do not have dyslexia but still feels like OpenDyslexic makes it easier to read. The data in the study does not support your conclusion that it “actually is worse”, unless i missed something in my interpretation? It seems to be a wash. This smaller N=3 study supports the efficacy of OpenDyslexic, using _actual reading tasks_ instead of the more artificial task in the study you provided: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/tayjournal/issue/76493/1152436 https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/tayjournal/issue/76493/11524...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- andai 2y agoOne of the testimonials implies that they've forced all websites to use this font, and it improved their experience significantly. I suspect that would be true of Arial, even! This has been my goal for some time, but no browser has such an option. (You can change the default font, but almost no website leaves it set to default, so it does nothing.)
- claytonwramsey 2y agoIn Firefox, you can the advanced font settings and uncheck “Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of your selections above” to force websites to use the default font.
- _heimdall 2y agoDoes this break icon fonts, or will icon fonts still display since the font you choose wouldn't have those ligatures defined?
- masfuerte 2y agoAn icon font ligature is just an entry in the font file that says to display a particular sequence of characters as a single glyph. In the absence of the font the browser doesn't know that the page designer (or the font designer) intended a ligature. If you force an alternative font the browser will just display the sequence of characters that made up the ligature. A few ligatures do have their own unicode code points, e.g. ffi, so the browser knows what is intended independent of the font. The ligatures used by icon fonts do not have their own code points.
- duskwuff 2y ago> An icon font ligature is just an entry in the font file that says to display a particular sequence of characters as a single glyph. Most icon fonts use private-use codepoints, not ligatures. These codepoints have no standard glyph, so disabling site-specific fonts will make those characters fail to render at all or display placeholder characters (e.g. �). Thankfully, icon fonts are declining rapidly in usage - SVG icons are superior for most use cases. > A few ligatures do have their own unicode code points, e.g. ffi, so the browser knows what is intended. The precomposed ligature codepoints (e.g. U+FB00-FB06) only exist for compatibility with legacy encodings which included similar characters. They shouldn't be used in new documents. If you want text on a web page to use ligatures, use the CSS font-variant-ligatures property to control which ones are used. (And make sure to disable them on monospaced text!)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jp57 2y agoI would like to see HN use this.
- thedrake 2y agoGreat seeing that they also have a great website score for Web Accessibility https://wave.webaim.org/report#/https://www.brailleinstitute.org/freefont/ https://wave.webaim.org/report#/https://www.brailleinstitute... which shows a near perfect Web Accessibility Score. Gives credence that they do take it seriously.
- dqv 2y agoYeah, these tests are great for finding obvious mistakes, but it can't help with improving UX past a certain point. I get the sense that a lot of vision-impaired folks are so busy fighting for bare minimum accessibility that they don't get the opportunity to ask for better UX. As an example in NVDA, go to heading level 2 "Unique Design Features", advance past the two sentences, right after "...make each one unique", you will hear "beeightohoh", text, then "oneaiaiell", text, then "eeeffpeecue", and so on. It's like Mojibake [0] for screen readers. Or maybe not - I don't know because I am sighted! I was thinking about how I'd fix it if it were an issue. A person who doesn't have enough visual acuity to see the distinctness of the glyphs might still want to understand the specific examples of normally-ambiguous glyphs. I came up with this, but it still isn't the best and probably breaks expectations: <style type="text/css"> .sr-only { border: 0 !important; clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px) !important; -webkit-clip-path: inset(50%) !important; clip-path: inset(50%) !important; height: 1px !important; overflow: hidden !important; margin: -1px !important; padding: 0 !important; position: absolute !important; width: 1px !important; white-space: nowrap !important; } </style> <figure> <div> <span class="sr-only">(distinct glyphs)</span>B8<span class="sr-only">(out of distinct glyphs)</span> <span aria-hidden="true"> </span> <span class="sr-only">(distinct glyphs)</span>O0<span class="sr-only">(out of distinct glyphs)</span> </div> <figcaption> <strong>Unambiguous Letterforms<span class="sr-only">:</span></strong><br> Letters have received special care to ensure they’re legible and clear. </figcaption> </figure> [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojibake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojibake
- dundercoder 2y agoVisually impaired guy here, always excited to see things that make my life easier. Also great that it shows blindness is a spectrum, not a binary condition.
- fsckboy 2y agoopen letter to all font people: You have a skill, design, which is a skill I don't have, so I am glad you are working on fonts and not me. A beautiful font is a thing to behold, it decreases stress and leaves us muy tranquilo-OOOOMMMM however: when I am in a spreadsheet, trying to choose a typeface & font for one column, my goal is NEVER to suddenly expand either the width, or the height, or the amount of hover over the baseline, or fabulous quantities of descender or ascender, or linespacing or i-don't-know,-you-tell-me-the-terminology, I don't want your typeface to shockingly change its alignment to all the other text I have and that includes "oh, just select a different pointsize"; if things are the same pointsize, then they should be able to sit next to one another; I know it's not your fault, but you know whose fault it really really isn't? MINE I really want to use your typefaces; don't make it so hard
- atoav 2y agoI agree that fonts should not differ too much in size and other important metrics, but if you select a condensed font for example expectations are that you can fit more letters into the same line. Now of every font would do equal spacing (something that your spreadsheet software could just implement, btw.) what would the point be of having different fonts? As you are running the system ypu could also just make a selection of particularily equal fonts and remove the rest, if that annoys you.
- xutopia 2y agoI have a feeling I'm looking at Comic Sans... and the idea that Comic Sans might actually be a really legible font dawns on me. I don't know what to believe anymore.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- andatki 2y agoWhat a name! - A dot Atkinson
- PhasmaFelis 2y agoThe "clear uprights" feature is something I've been shouting about for a long time. It's inexcusable that commonly-used fonts like Verdana (right here on HN) can't distinguish between l and I.
- mastazi 2y agoI have an issue with the lowercase q which looks a lot like a lowercase a. In many other fonts, these two letters look quite different and it's unlikely that you would mix them up.
- mzs 2y agoqu vs a
- thomas-st 2y agoIt looks a bit like a handwritten Polish ą
- rasguanabana 2y agoFor sure string like "zqb" would give me a pause with this letterform, because it looks a lot like "ząb". Maybe it would be clearer in surrounding text, though.
- endverbraucher 2y agoAlso consider "Atkinson Hyperlegible Pro" an updated and slightly extendend Version: https://github.com/tryoxiss/atkinson-hyperlegible-pro https://github.com/tryoxiss/atkinson-hyperlegible-pro
- dartharva 2y agoI am astigmatic. I tried taking off my glasses and reading this page side-by-side against a Substack article zoomed in at the same font size at a distance. I could not make any difference in ease of reading or legibility, I struggled roughly equally for both of them. What am I missing?
- atoav 2y agoNothing. Most typefaces are already pretty good at being legible, so we are talking about marginal gains here. A font like that where usually similar-looking characters are easily distinguished shines more when applied e.g. in forms or other applications where precise input is required.
- hypercube33 2y agoThats interesting because I arrived at the same conclusion. At first glance for me it really seemed like its a font strait out of a elementary grade level textbook. Maybe its the website layout, maybe its that the font is huge and spaced the same, I'm not sure. As far as easier to read, I am on the fence versus monospaced computer fonts if its any better or not. I wonder what their research behind this is but the website started to bug me so I didnt dig deeper personally
- Popeyes 2y agoI find this with a lot of assistive fonts, that they have claims but no research that says "Yes, this makes a dramatic difference". For example, the OpenDyslexic font I've never seen any research that it make any more difference yet I see people act like it's an answer. Big text is easier to read.
- MavisBacon 2y agoI attended a talk given on this font at an assistive technology conference recently. This seems to actually have a body of evidence demonstrating its benefits in specific use cases. Also from a design standpoint it truly is superior to alternatives. Things like dyslexia fonts are largely considered entirely ineffective in the field
- 2y ago
- throwaway81523 2y agoThis is a sans serif font. I thought that impairs readability in blocks of text.
- mungoman2 2y agoNice, but kerning seems off. See for example word "Tails" in the article. a and i should be closer.
- notorandit 2y agoThe font itself is not enough for good readability. So-called "UI/UX" designer are making a lot of fancy work to make things illegible. Contrast between background (aka "paper") and foreground (aka "ink") is going down and down. So, no matter the font of choice, text is becoming less readable (and less relevant) also because of color choices. While video and audio contents is getting more and more attention.
- Maxion 2y agoContrast is not the end-all-be-all I have pretty severe astigmatism, and when contrast is too high I get quite severe visual artifacts. For me text is more legible if the contrast is a bit tamed.
- leptons 2y agoThere's plenty of middle ground between too-artsy low contrast light color fonts on light color background and high-contrast text.
- akvadrako 2y agoToo much contrast is hard to read, though it also depends on the quality of your monitor and the ambient lighting. OLEDs have infinite contrast ratios with black text or backgrounds, which is too much. For example when I first saw this new CV I thought, "that's really easy on the eyes". https://worrydream.com/ https://worrydream.com/
- bcoates 2y agoGenerally OLEDs don't use off for black outside of special-effect low power modes. The display only has stable contrast above some threshold brightness that in a dark viewing environment is going to be noticeably brighter than off, and it looks awful below that. The #000 point is set well brighter than that level.
- akvadrako 2y ago
- me_jumper 2y agoI'm personally not sure if I like the font in bodies of text, but I adore it for presentations. You don't have long texts on slides, and everything is very distinct. I find it especially helpful, as many setups where one presents can be suboptimal (e.g., bad lighting, obstructed views, warped surface that is projected on, …). Which is where this font shines not only for people with impaired vision, but for everyone.
- hinkley 2y agoI haven’t needed to optimize displays for projectors for some time, but when I did I was shocked how long 1024x768 survived. If you were lucky you’d get a 1280 pixel projector. And almost invariably, any shade of grey lighter than E7E7E7 was indistinguishable from white. People like to put light gray lines in tabular data to help the eye track across. It disappears and then people keep interrupting the meeting flow to ask questions about the data they were meant to be able to answer with their eyeballs. Though once in a while they’d put light grey in a bar chart and then they were fucked. They are also all ever so slightly out of focus. Or dust on the lens. Or projecting on an orange peel wall instead of a screen. I’m curious how things have improved in let’s say the last ten years. Still hot garbage?
- me_jumper 2y agoDepends on where you are, I guess. I work at a University in Germany, and most meeting rooms are either 1) very old and exactly as you've described, or 2) updated in the last few years and actually usable. There doesn't seem to be an in-between.
- BaudouinVH 2y agoThat font is not the only designed for legibility. Luciole is another one : https://luciole-vision.com/luciole-en.html https://luciole-vision.com/luciole-en.html
- mikae1 2y agohttps://www.lexend.com https://www.lexend.com is an alternative.
- dangsux 2y ago[dead]
- Dansvidania 2y agoi just want to say the terms and condition were 2 pages of pretty simple language and this was probably the first time I encounter term in such a consumable form. cheers.
- Diti 2y agoThe most legible font I have ever seen – and I wish someone would make an open-source version of it, and a monospace version, along with more glyphs – is Heinemann Special. No two characters look the same, and the font is really pleasant to read. No [back]slashed-zero, though.
- chronogram 2y agoA monospace version of a font designed to have every glyph be different is DP Sans Mono: https://www.pgdp.net/wiki/DP_Sans_Mono https://www.pgdp.net/wiki/DP_Sans_Mono
- tokai 2y agoReading through their license it is very much open source. It gives the rights to "to use, study, copy, merge, embed, modify, redistribute, and sell modified and unmodified copies" and thus covers the requirements of open source.
- snthpy 2y agoIs there a Nerdfont version of this that I can use for my terminal?
- globular-toast 2y agoSure, it's readable, but the font size is also set to be twice as big as what I set my font size as (2rem) so I would expect that. Assuming everyone sets their font to what is acceptable for them, what is the reason for setting this page to 2x that size?
- msla 2y agoI just like that it's normally legible, in that it distinguishes AI from Al and such, which normal sans-serif fonts rarely do. It does this by having serifs, yes, which seems like a lost art among the Usability Experts of the world.
- AlanYx 2y agoIs the tight kerning before the lowercase letter "l" intentional? I find it hard to believe that's the optimum choice for readability. Words like "title" seem like they're harder to read than average because there's almost no space between the t and the l.
- zelphirkalt 2y agoI find it easier to distinguish "O" and "0" in fonts that distinguish between capital letter "O" and number zero "0" by putting a dot or something inside. It is already annoying, when you need to guess based on width or other shape between the 2, because that assumes, that you are seeing both at the same time, looking back and forth between them. Additionally "I" and "l" look way too similar. So I think "Unambiguous Letterforms" in this case not necessarily true.
- dylanowen 2y agoMaybe the font didn't load correctly but it solves both those problems from what I can see.
- zelphirkalt 2y agoAh that would be an explanation. I simply assumed they would be using pictures and did not check, whether I can highlight single letters. It's a pity then, since I am not loading fonts from a random third party, especially not from a bad actor like Google. The site also never asked me for consent, so it should not be including Google stuff anyway.
- Night_Thastus 2y agoThis is the sort of thing I'd love to see Tentacruel look at. His videoes briefly covered iconography and fonts and I'd bet he'd have some cool insights about this font.
- RicoElectrico 2y agoThat q is too similar to single story ą for my taste (even if this font uses double story a/ą). But otherwise it's the most aesthetically pleasing of the legibility-oriented fonts :)
- klondike_klive 2y agoIronically I find "legibility" to be a real train wreck of a word to read. Not just in this font (although I do find the shorter ascenders difficult) but as a word, generally.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]