by opipik
Download disabled
The designer of this FontStruction has chosen not to make it available for download from this website by choosing an “All Rights Reserved" license.
Please respect their decision and desist from requesting license changes in the comments.
If you would like to use the FontStruction for a specific project, you may be able to contact the designer directly about obtaining a license.
Something much easier than the 5x4 I did last time.
9 Comments
Aye, nice one opipik. I'm sure it's easier to fit more differentiation into 5 px. I like the g, s and 4.
And it's quite readable, good job!
+ many disambiguations = a well-thought design in mono.
I'd say it's much more readable than your "improvement" of the 5x4 font, where you sacrificed readability for an uniform aesthetic.
1. You cannot really compare 5x5 and 5x4.
2. My strict 5x4 after your limited 5x4 was a proof of concept : the readability is damaged if we stretch the glyphs horizontally (but it's quite doable, though a lot more difficult than using the proportional/conventional glyphs).
Please comment on the right thread (font page), if you need to improve your interesting very low-res designs, else the user cannot follow us, since 2013…
Here's the link to opipik's proud "fs 5x4"…
I replied throughly there… I hope you'll learn the meaning of readability before referring to a less legible experiment ;-)
Metadata:
«
Readability v.s. legibility in very low-res raster text characters, (c) 2017-12-17 dpla.
• 'Readable' from the standpoint of a correct code point* (with an optional legibility);
• 'Legible' from the standpoint of a correct glyph shape (with a necessary readability).
Be aware that the both columns in this example only feature a selection of degradations.
* When you DUPLICATE a glyph, your font is broken and unusable for _any_ context of use;
If you cannot provide a complete US-ASCII, your creature is NOT A FONT, even as >=8-bit.
http://www.dpla.fr/fonts/micro/doc/
»
Please sign in to comment.