Hi, dpc! I have just commented your clone in the 3x3B page… So much so that, I need to drop a few useful lines, again:
• your type color is well-balanced (good 'gray' distribution between the glyphs, though "1" is like the ugly duckling - besides a double);
• your "J" choice is a tad odd to me, but it's rather coherent with your "Q" change at the same time (I mean: half max size and round);
• "!" == ";" (tough duplicate);
• "()" is perhaps overstyled (but almost coherent with the dark "&@");
• ")]" fix (correct position, where the ones in your "<>" is noteful);
• interesting symbols and common numerics (except "250", lighter), where adding the lowercase (please!) will spoil your freedom of choice, unfortunately (as the rule of the genre).
V2 downloaded… (3 years after, thank you!) I'll compare later.
The lack of completeness in US-ASCII made me log in for this sole purpose, in 2013. When I have finished listing the related very low-res experiments (with a few comments, positive hopefully), I can leave FontStruct, I mean… ('my' project does not limits to this tool -where I still s**k-, even to pixels.)
• I'll include ~200 more fonts/trials there a.s.a.p.; I had to postpone a little this review in order to design a handful of small projects of this kind, lately (this time they are more linked to voxel art, and the many samples and animations are quite worth waiting, I'm sure).
• Well, as always in this field of low-resolution, it all depends on the level of detail you expect yourself. On my side, I feel quite comfortable with my complete and valid US-ASCII in 3x3 (be it with 2 or 3 x-height, for instance)… The learning curve is shorter thanks to the fine wight I could define (I mean, too heavy = black blocks and duplicates everywhere; too light = not enough solutions etc.)… Believe me, it's very legible, compared to my 2x4 US-ASCII (and esp. my 2x3 non-US-ASCII, of course).
• So, I'm sorry you withdrawed your 3x4 from your catalogue (I come here too late, probably?)… Anyway, my 3x4, if you wanted to know, are very numerous (0-px baseline, 1-px descender, numerics 'alternates'), all in valid US-ASCII (prop. & mono, no dupe), and you're right, the 3x4 matrix is the most legible Latin pixel matrix one can use trustfully (after the quite easier 3x5 grid). My first trial in 3x4, may years back, used a 2 x-height design, so much so that I could include a lot of extended Latin characters and symbols (but I had to resort to baseline hacks, which made me stop my 8-bit+ experiments to prefer the more common and stable 7-bit code points)…
You can always let me know, in public or in private, what are your difficulties in 3x3 lowercase, pertaining to "3x3 dpc". Just a single tip of mine: with your choice of numerics, I woudn't recommend you introduce 3 x-height letters, since they would lower the legibility because of too many ambiguities (a very common flaw in this kind of minimalist design, where the subgrids can serve as visual reminders)…
3x3
5 Comments
Hi, dpc! I have just commented your clone in the 3x3B page… So much so that, I need to drop a few useful lines, again:
• your type color is well-balanced (good 'gray' distribution between the glyphs, though "1" is like the ugly duckling - besides a double);
• your "J" choice is a tad odd to me, but it's rather coherent with your "Q" change at the same time (I mean: half max size and round);
• "!" == ";" (tough duplicate);
• "()" is perhaps overstyled (but almost coherent with the dark "&@");
• ")]" fix (correct position, where the ones in your "<>" is noteful);
• interesting symbols and common numerics (except "250", lighter), where adding the lowercase (please!) will spoil your freedom of choice, unfortunately (as the rule of the genre).
Bye!
@dpla -
I am a casual, and was just toying.Thanks for suggestions. I did some editing.
V2 downloaded… (3 years after, thank you!) I'll compare later.
The lack of completeness in US-ASCII made me log in for this sole purpose, in 2013. When I have finished listing the related very low-res experiments (with a few comments, positive hopefully), I can leave FontStruct, I mean… ('my' project does not limits to this tool -where I still s**k-, even to pixels.)
Oh, wow. Nice list you have there.
Just yesterday I was trying to make a a font that would have lower case letters as well. I don't think it's doable in 3x3, so I tried one pixel more.
https://fontstruct.com/fontstructions/show/1482293/3x4-pixel-font-1-1
Hi!
• I'll include ~200 more fonts/trials there a.s.a.p.; I had to postpone a little this review in order to design a handful of small projects of this kind, lately (this time they are more linked to voxel art, and the many samples and animations are quite worth waiting, I'm sure).
• Well, as always in this field of low-resolution, it all depends on the level of detail you expect yourself. On my side, I feel quite comfortable with my complete and valid US-ASCII in 3x3 (be it with 2 or 3 x-height, for instance)… The learning curve is shorter thanks to the fine wight I could define (I mean, too heavy = black blocks and duplicates everywhere; too light = not enough solutions etc.)… Believe me, it's very legible, compared to my 2x4 US-ASCII (and esp. my 2x3 non-US-ASCII, of course).
• So, I'm sorry you withdrawed your 3x4 from your catalogue (I come here too late, probably?)… Anyway, my 3x4, if you wanted to know, are very numerous (0-px baseline, 1-px descender, numerics 'alternates'), all in valid US-ASCII (prop. & mono, no dupe), and you're right, the 3x4 matrix is the most legible Latin pixel matrix one can use trustfully (after the quite easier 3x5 grid). My first trial in 3x4, may years back, used a 2 x-height design, so much so that I could include a lot of extended Latin characters and symbols (but I had to resort to baseline hacks, which made me stop my 8-bit+ experiments to prefer the more common and stable 7-bit code points)…
You can always let me know, in public or in private, what are your difficulties in 3x3 lowercase, pertaining to "3x3 dpc". Just a single tip of mine: with your choice of numerics, I woudn't recommend you introduce 3 x-height letters, since they would lower the legibility because of too many ambiguities (a very common flaw in this kind of minimalist design, where the subgrids can serve as visual reminders)…
OK, I must stop here. :-)
Please sign in to comment.