by Noah (winty5)

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.

Truly pushing the limits of minimalism with this one.
Info: Created on 3rd January 2013 . Last edited on 3rd January 2013.
License Creative Commons
    Fave Tags:


    Comment by Wonson (owowow) 3rd January 2013
    @owowow: Strange was what I was aiming for :)
    Comment by Noah (winty5) 4th January 2013
    Good. Maybe you can add some punctuations ? Besides, IMO you can improve it by avoiding too many 'O' duplicates, as I tried to do in my recent 2x2 tutorial :
    Comment by dpla 9th May 2013
    E.g. S :
    Comment by dpla 10th May 2013

    I still cannot see the logics of your shrinkage (that is, the way you degraded a virtual font, and which larger one). Your technique or tricks look all more or less subjective, not based e.g. on solarized ratio-free downsamples… (i.e. valid script-based glyphs -done by coders-, with possible further corrections -done by artists-.) Your 2x2 UC "B" is a sans serif LC actually, while your 2x2 UC "I" is a serifed UC, etc. So, you only touched upon the question, with a personal approach that impacts the legibility. A 'simple' method would be to gather the conventional glyphs (likely sans serif) in groups of width and gray, before mixing these values with a tolerance by sight (one can add a curve). The characters should be divided evenly beforehand (in quarters to rebuild the final 2x2, of course, but their individual weight may differ subjectively). In a project of complete basic Ascii (all dupes included), your impossible font would include too many incomprehensible duplicates as is (e.g. "C">"G" gray - there are levels of ambiguities). We'd need something better thought-out, even as a mere placeholder fallback:

    A FONT.




    Comment by dpla 26th April 2017

    PS. Nope, winty5, the 'limits of minimalism' would arise from a 1x1 matrix (plainly "░" OR "█" -cf. above- to depict each glyph 'completely'). If you referred to the so-called legibility in the pseudo 'micro' fonts, this capability is limited among other things by the number of concurrent glyphs. See my 'avatar' to be persuaded (where the 2x2 LC consonants are unambiguous, even the 2x2 LC "a" indirectly since it is the first letter -and vowel)… Bottom line: the more 'micro' glyphs you add, the more ambiguous they become. With your small piece of font, your trial is not a proof of minimalism, even less a boundary in any field. Try again in basic Ascii (93 glyphs, not solely 26), and you may change your mind about the right 'smallest' legible size. {Tip of the day: it is a tad taller -but I already said that on FontStruct a long time ago- and I needn't post my unreleased font right now as a proof of legibility in a decent number of contexts.} Your 2x2 UC (pseudo-font) shyly mixes UC and LC, which is 'strange', all right young people…

    Comment by dpla 26th April 2017