1. 38
  1. 10

    Frankly amazing it’s legible at all, I’m impressed. I do think the uppercase style works a lot better though.

    1. 2

      I think it’s only really “legible” because the sample sentence is familiar and expected in this context.

    2. 5

      This reminds me of Dotsies (https://dotsies.org/), which is another attempt to compress reading down into a very small space. In the case of Dotsies, the plan was to abandon latin letterforms entirely.

      While these are neat to look at (and often make really cool flair additions to tech projects like circuit boards and I’ve actually had dotsies pin names on a few custom board silkscreens I ordered), the only practical use I know of them is trying to render text in very low pixelcount environments like LED matricies or old LCD displays.

      1. 2

        Fascinating concept. The lack of case (upper/lower) is a bit of a drawback for general use (perhaps an additional dot can be used to denote a capital letter).

        I’m reminded of the fictional Marain from Banks’ Culture universe.

        1. 2

          This is actually pretty normal for english rewrite attempts. Case is discarded in the majority of english-rewrite attempts I’m aware of (or at least, greatly reduced in importance). Quikscript, Shavian, and Deseret either discard case or only use scale for indicating case.

          1. 2

            Come to think of it, Cyrillic alphabets usually don’t have different letterforms for cases either.

            Thanks for the mention of Deseret, TIL.

      2. 4

        Finally, a font to render four hundred page EULAs in!

        1. 2

          I was unable to find any words or sentences which were illegible or lacked fluidity, so I now consider it complete

          I can barely decipher the “lake” in the example but everything after is gibberish to me.

          1. 5

            What lake? It’s the classical quick brown fox demo text.

            1. 5

              If I didn’t know it’s supposed to be the quick brown fox sample sentence, I wouldn’t decipher much either. To me it’s a proof that 4x4 isn’t enough to make a readable font. ;)

              1. 2

                That’s the point. I only could decipher the part I already knew out of my memory.

                1. 1

                  Yes that was” lazy”

              2. 2

                Wow! I remember designing bitmap fonts on my family’s typewriter when I was a kid (i was into computers but we didn’t own one yet) but the smallest I ever went was 5x5. It’s impressive that our visual cortexes can decipher text at such low resolution.

                The usual size for old-school terminals like the ADM-3A was 5x7, or 5x9 if you had a fancy one that had lowercase. (Plus of course one more pixel of gap between characters.)

                1. 1

                  I was recently modifying a bitmap font for a small screen device to fit inside 8x16 with maximum readability. The worst problem of the coarse grid is the inability to get proportions exactly right without stretching that would make the individual letters feel out of place.

                  This font maintains the relative proportions rather well, but feels vertically squashed due to reserving space for the below the base line graphics. Most 4x3 fonts don’t really do that. I would target 5x3 or ditch the baseline.

                  But good job nevertheless!