You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The lowercase L (l) glyph in the Radnon (the handwritten one) looks a lot more like a "z" glyph. While visually distinct when directly compared, it takes considerable extra mental energy -- and even keeping it on my mind I often confuse them.
Take this example: which one is correct?
You could probably figure it out, but it took thought. The role of a code font is to be clear and distinct, and I do not believe this glyph accomplishes that goal. Its a shame, considering that handwritten fonts have the most leaniancy for having distinct glyphs.
l L
z Z
Suggestions:
Replace the lowercase L with a new form entirely.
Add an alternate glyph, either as the new default (ideal, given pourpose) with the option to swap to the old one for those who prefer. I would understand though if the new glyph is the alternate.
Possible isual changes:
The glyph has a notable slant right on its ascent, simply anchoring the top of the line to somewhere higher up and removing the top serif[?] would likely be good enough, and this is a baseline change for all modifications. It could even be kept to a small extend, leaving the serif[?] much smaller.
A squiggle could be added to fill extra space, as needed. This is commonly found throughout many glyphs in the font, as shown.
Addtionally replacing the bottom with a shorter line, simillar to what is seen in fonts like Nunito could be an option. This would help further differentiate from the 'z' shape, to some small extend.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The dashed Z could be confused with the alternate form of Polish letter Ż. Admittedly, the use of this variant is mostly restricted to graphic novels (but Monaspace Radon is an excellent candidate for use in graphic novels😄).
One possible approach would be to use something similar to the "ell" form with a loop:
The lowercase L (
l
) glyph in the Radnon (the handwritten one) looks a lot more like a "z" glyph. While visually distinct when directly compared, it takes considerable extra mental energy -- and even keeping it on my mind I often confuse them.Take this example: which one is correct?
You could probably figure it out, but it took thought. The role of a code font is to be clear and distinct, and I do not believe this glyph accomplishes that goal. Its a shame, considering that handwritten fonts have the most leaniancy for having distinct glyphs.
l L
z Z
Suggestions:
Possible isual changes:
The glyph has a notable slant right on its ascent, simply anchoring the top of the line to somewhere higher up and removing the top serif[?] would likely be good enough, and this is a baseline change for all modifications. It could even be kept to a small extend, leaving the serif[?] much smaller.
A squiggle could be added to fill extra space, as needed. This is commonly found throughout many glyphs in the font, as shown.
Addtionally replacing the bottom with a shorter line, simillar to what is seen in fonts like Nunito could be an option. This would help further differentiate from the 'z' shape, to some small extend.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: