• tisktisk@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    This seems to indicate it’s best for those with ‘low vision’ which almost implies there’s a more ‘hyperlegible’ font that’s better for those with standard/regular vision. Is this the case or should it be argued that this font is most legible for all and thusly also best for those with low vision? Just curious–would like to know what best runner-ups would be suggested too

    • tisktisk@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’m also curious how they went about creating this font. Any resources on how they go about proving/creating it’s ‘hyperlegibility’?

      • stelelor@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        The website lists some features that enhance legibility. Some are common sense (ex. 1, l and I all look different), some are less obvious:

        • Unambiguous Letterforms

        • Clear Uprights

        • Distinct Pairs

        • Open Counters

        • Spurs and Tails

        • Special Circles (although this one could be just branding)