Note that there still have been no studies on its efficacy. At worst, it is a great font to avoid ambiguity between characters.
Note that there still have been no studies on its efficacy. At worst, it is a great font to avoid ambiguity between characters.
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
I’m also curious how they went about creating this font. Any resources on how they go about proving/creating it’s ‘hyperlegibility’?
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)
This is largely a layperson’s opinion, but I don’t think there would be much of a difference. The thing is that perfect vision rarely happens, not just because of bad eyes, but because sunlight might be hitting your screen or you’re reading at a weird angle or contrast is bad etc…
And even if the pixels were beamed straight to your retina, your brain is still a pattern matching machine. If it’s easier to discern individual letters, it becomes quicker to select each word correctly.
Having said that, if there were a font that’s objectively the most readable, we probably wouldn’t have a gazillion different fonts. Some folks here have said that they find this font distracting, for example. So, yeah, you kind of have to decide on your own, what works best for you.