I think it’s a decent enough font for general usage, but does anyone have links to studies about it? Would be interesting to see how it does compared to other readability fonts like Andika or humanist sans-serifs in general (e.g. Frutiger, Fira Sans).
There are studies on fonts and it turns out fonts are not the primary issue, although it does help if characters like q p and d b are differentiated more! These studies are easy to find with a search.
I read my share of font studies, most of which aren’t really that great for a contemporary use (comparisons of Arial and TNR on CRT screens, never mind the generally low number of participants & fonts), and the better ones mostly tell you that there’s a lot of different factors involved.
Now, I’ve read the articles about Atkinson (and watched one video), and at least they intend to optimize for the right quartile for me. I mean, when publishing IT docs or blog posts, you get a good number of people post 35, where vision tends to get worse. So average reading speed isn’t really the target…
I’d really be interested to see whether that pays out. IIRC, often font familiarity alone beat a few other aspects. So the small benefit from avoiding homoglyphs might be less significant than having worked with Calibri for 15 years. (Or, heck, having read books set in Garamond for half a century.)
A bit off-putting that the download requires to click a license agreement, which is a bit sad because it appears to be just the Open Font license which is quite permissive as it allows redistribution and even inclusion in commercial projects (I had to do a bit of research to find out and and IANAL).
A little bit besides the point of this thread, but why is the OFL considered copyleft, while the (original) LPPL (LaTeX Project Public License) isn’t? Both have a clause that disallows modifications to bear the same name as the original (for very pragmatic reasons - those modifications could break the rendering of a project). However, with LaTeX, it was a big issue, with OFL, everyone seems to be okay?
Huh, I think this is the first time I hear of a programming language having its own typeface. I wonder how many other PLs have had their own typefaces.
See also Inclusive Sans - Discussion on Lobsters
This font has no tail on the lowercase L (l), which makes it too similar to the pipe character (|). Atkinson Hyperlegible does have a tail on the l.
Thanks. I’m on the hunt for a reliable sans type for documents and technical use (but not monospace).
The main font for https://cohost.org/!
Here’s a gallery of six of my favorite “hyperlegible” sans-serif proportional fonts:
I think it’s a decent enough font for general usage, but does anyone have links to studies about it? Would be interesting to see how it does compared to other readability fonts like Andika or humanist sans-serifs in general (e.g. Frutiger, Fira Sans).
There are studies on fonts and it turns out fonts are not the primary issue, although it does help if characters like q p and d b are differentiated more! These studies are easy to find with a search.
I read my share of font studies, most of which aren’t really that great for a contemporary use (comparisons of Arial and TNR on CRT screens, never mind the generally low number of participants & fonts), and the better ones mostly tell you that there’s a lot of different factors involved.
Now, I’ve read the articles about Atkinson (and watched one video), and at least they intend to optimize for the right quartile for me. I mean, when publishing IT docs or blog posts, you get a good number of people post 35, where vision tends to get worse. So average reading speed isn’t really the target…
I’d really be interested to see whether that pays out. IIRC, often font familiarity alone beat a few other aspects. So the small benefit from avoiding homoglyphs might be less significant than having worked with Calibri for 15 years. (Or, heck, having read books set in Garamond for half a century.)
A bit off-putting that the download requires to click a license agreement, which is a bit sad because it appears to be just the Open Font license which is quite permissive as it allows redistribution and even inclusion in commercial projects (I had to do a bit of research to find out and and IANAL).
A little bit besides the point of this thread, but why is the OFL considered copyleft, while the (original) LPPL (LaTeX Project Public License) isn’t? Both have a clause that disallows modifications to bear the same name as the original (for very pragmatic reasons - those modifications could break the rendering of a project). However, with LaTeX, it was a big issue, with OFL, everyone seems to be okay?
I’d use this in the terminal if there were a nice monospace version of it.
may I interest you in 0xProto? https://github.com/0xType/0xProto
EDIT: OTOH, it’s more of an editor, not terminal emulator font.
Oh that has very pretty glyphs. Thanks.
See also https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2022/08/an-update-to-the-atkinson-hyperlegible-font/
The Go fonts include a proportional font that is a candidate for inclusion here. https://go.dev/blog/go-fonts
Huh, I think this is the first time I hear of a programming language having its own typeface. I wonder how many other PLs have had their own typefaces.
Check out a font named APL386 for another typeface coming from a specific programming language. That’s the only other one I know of.
I use this font on my ereader and it looks excellent.