Slashdot Mirror


The World's Smallest Legible Font

hasanabbas1987 writes "From the article: 'Well 'technically' they aren't the smallest fonts in the world as if they were you wouldn't be able to read even a single letter, but, you should be able to read the entire paragraph in the picture given above... we did. A Computer science professor called Ken Perlin designed these tiny fonts and you can fit 500 reasonable words in a resolution of 320 x 240 space. There are at the moment the smallest legible fonts in the world.'"

214 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. Legibility by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 1

    Won't the actual legibility of the font have a lot to do with pixel size and spacing? Sure, you can pack that font into a tiny space, but if it's all broken up in jaggies, can you READ it?

    --
    Chaos maximizes locally around me.
    1. Re:Legibility by sholsinger · · Score: 1

      Also, if your monitor is rotated 90 degrees it becomes significantly less legible. (as mine is)

    2. Re:Legibility by icebike · · Score: 1

      Not to mention screen resolution.

      But yes, pixel spacing is key, and it is not legible on this laptop (1920x1200 native resolution).

      Even with magnifying glass (8x) large parts of it are un-readable.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Legibility by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Tilt your head 90 degrees and you should be alright.

      You're welcome.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    4. Re:Legibility by treeves · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I can read it at the same screen resolution. Are you familiar with the text to begin with? I am. Maybe that helps a lot.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    5. Re:Legibility by shoor · · Score: 1

      Sure, pixel size has a lot to do with legibility. Any font is going to be unreadable for a small enough pixel size. I believe the point is something like this:

      Get a monitor with pixel size that's just big enough for you to read this font. Now try some other font and see if you can read it as well.

      Personally I'm impressed by this. Is it useful? Well, as a casual desktop user who sometimes uses magnify features on my browser, perhaps not. Then again, with ultra readable fonts I might not need to use magnify as much. There are probably situations where it is useful. Some people have sarcastically suggested using it to put things in fine print that you don't really want read, but I would think this is precisely the font you don't want for that kind of thing. If nothing else it's good to probe the limits of human perception.

      --
      In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
    6. Re:Legibility by Gravitron+5000 · · Score: 1

      I'm reading it at 1280x1024, and not familiar with the text. Maybe it's his eyes ...

    7. Re:Legibility by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      It might help if the person who took the screenshot had turned off ClearType.

    8. Re:Legibility by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      No, it wouldn't.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:Legibility by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      now it's all upside down!!

      you are useless to me!!

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    10. Re:Legibility by sholsinger · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is that these fonts are designed for LCD displays that are RGBRGB horizontally, not vertically. So rotating any display while using these fonts reduces the legibility due to the sub-pixel optimizations that have been done to make the font legible at it's size.

    11. Re:Legibility by IcyWolfy · · Score: 1

      It's quite legible on this laptop (15" screen, 1920x1200 native resolution)
      not familiar with the text, but I read the entire thing through with no real hassle.

      What is your first-langage, and what portion can't you read?

    12. Re:Legibility by Dakman · · Score: 1

      It could... depends on what type of display you are using. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_geometry

    13. Re:Legibility by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even worse, for those who can't read that tiny fonts (whether it is because they have high-DPI displays or just plain bad eyesight), it doesn't help to zoom in on the bitmapped text -- it becomes an illegible mess because it relies on subpixel scaling, which doesn't zoom.

      Anyhow, legibility is in the eye of the beholder. What's the smallest legible font for one person won't be for the next. Which is why we let people choose their own fonts these days.
      The 1990s are calling -- they want their bitmapped fonts back!

    14. Re:Legibility by arth1 · · Score: 1

      No, it wouldn't, because the font relies on subpixel bitmapping.

    15. Re:Legibility by Dakman · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it'll only look right if you view it on the same type of display. Otherwise it could just look quite strange and blurry. Just because the font is designed to take advantage of sub pixel rendering doesn't mean that it can't be rendered without it. We haven't even seen the text without clear type yet. There is no telling how good/bad it could look, especially compared to if you are viewing the above image on a different display.

    16. Re:Legibility by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Just because the font is designed to take advantage of sub pixel rendering doesn't mean that it can't be rendered without it.

      Yes, in this case it does. RTFA?

    17. Re:Legibility by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1
      --
      SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
    18. Re:Legibility by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1
      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    19. Re:Legibility by Dakman · · Score: 1

      Yes, that confirms that it is designed for sub pixel rendering. Just as we already agreed that it did. Just saying, what does it look like without, or on a different display. You can't just claim that this is as good as it can possibly look just from a guess.

    20. Re:Legibility by fbjon · · Score: 1

      It's still pretty clever though, taking advantage of sub-pixel resolution in the design itself. The same trick should work in any orientation and pixel order, as long as the font is changed and reworked to match.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    21. Re:Legibility by alta · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ. I scrolled up to the top of the page, and looked at it with my 26" 1920*1200 LCD. I could read it at about 3 ft. I stood up and walked back 6ft and couldn't read it.

      Then I held down control, and pushed up the mouse wheel, doubling the size of that image... Guess what, I COULD read it at that point. Yeah, it's just as blurry as it was when I was 3ft from it, but before at 6ft it was just jagged vertical lines.

      I understand your point, subpixel scaling only works on a relatively small scale, but pointing out that it's still as illegible after zooming isn't true.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    22. Re:Legibility by treeves · · Score: 1

      BTW, laptops with 1920x1200 displays are not common. Is yours also a ThinkPad W series?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    23. Re:Legibility by arth1 · · Score: 1

      What part of "assumes that" in TFA didn't you understand?
      There is no version without subpixel rendering -- it's a designed bitmap colour font with inherent subpixel rendering, not a "normal" font that uses ClearType.
      Zoom in on it to look how it will look on displays without subpixel rendering. That's no guess.

    24. Re:Legibility by icebike · · Score: 1

      Dell 9400. (16inch diagonal).

      Its actually easier to read on my desktop which has the same resolution display but the displays are larger. (24inch)

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    25. Re:Legibility by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Can't read the original slashdotted article, so I'm confused by what is meant as "smallest". "Small" is really meaningless. Do they mean literally small, in that they have a really high resolution font that's legible even when shrunk very small? Such as letters several inches high up on a billboard, but drivers can still read it easily w/o causing accident. Or do they mean the fewest number of square pixels necessary to convey the information on a "standard" screen (where standard is a completely dubious term)? Is it the same on a wide screen monitor and on a PDA screen? What about phosphor screen vs LCD vs laser printing?

      Thus just sounds stupid, and I can only assume the summary got it all wrong. As usual. (Who votes for the moderators anyway? One of these days we need some new ones.)

    26. Re:Legibility by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1

      The sub-pixel hinting is very weak. Desaturate the image and it's just as readable. I'd like to see it on an iPhone though.

    27. Re:Legibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      OK tilt your head 270 degrees instead.

    28. Re:Legibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Great! Now I'm dead...

    29. Re:Legibility by supertrinko · · Score: 4, Funny

      Next news story: "Slashdotter snaps someones neck through the internet."

      --
      If it rhymes it must be true.
    30. Re:Legibility by Golddess · · Score: 1

      can you READ it?

      Sorta. But the words I cannot actually read, my brain fills in with the appropriate word since it knows where they pulled that paragraph from. I imagine there are others who are "reading" it that are experiencing the same.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    31. Re:Legibility by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      1440x900 19" monitor @ 3 feet. Can't read it. Now if I stick my nose within a foot of the screen I can but I'm thinking this is just a YMMV situation.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    32. Re:Legibility by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      Ahh! Right, it uses sub-pixel optimizations, that is why it kind of sucks on my main (vertical) monitor, but clears up when moving the window over to the lower end horizontal monitor...

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    33. Re:Legibility by Lucractius · · Score: 1

      my last 2 macbook pro 17 inch laptops disagree.

      --
      XML - A clever joke would be here if /. didn't mangle tag brackets.
    34. Re:Legibility by memco · · Score: 1

      One of the difficulties I face as someone with bad eyesight is "mobile friendly" sites that disable zooming–it's a usability nightmare. A font like this would be impossible for me to read without the ability to zoom, and as you mentioned, it looks terrible when you zoom in. I could live with it, but I think there are better alternatives.

      As an aside, if you have disabled zooming on your sites or know someone has, please re-enable it for us visually impaired folk.

      *Stupid slashdot is mucking with my ability to paste. WTF?

      --
      Get me a meat pie floater!
    35. Re:Legibility by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now I'm right back where I started and i think I can puke pea green soup.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    36. Re:Legibility by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      *Stupid slashdot is mucking with my ability to paste. WTF?

      Google Chrome dev version has this issue. I switched to Mozilla Minefield because of it.

    37. Re:Legibility by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Same resolution on a larger surface would make the individual pixels larger.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    38. Re:Legibility by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      What I really need is a *printable* tiny font. I like to print 9 pages per page of entire books, to save paper, but oftentimes the default Microsoft fonts are worthless.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    39. Re:Legibility by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      At that text size why not just get a PDA or small tablet?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    40. Re:Legibility by memco · · Score: 1

      Hmm, must be a webkit thing then since I'm running Safari.

      --
      Get me a meat pie floater!
    41. Re:Legibility by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      He is reading it on a laptop screen, are you? The laptop screen he is specifying is most likely a 17" screen running at 1920x1200 native, which means the pixel density (dot pitch) is insanely high, might be the cause of his inability to read it. The text hurts my eyes to read on my 24" monitor running 1920x1200 res, so I can see how dropping to a 17" (or even 15"?) would cause it to be difficult to view.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    42. Re:Legibility by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Speaking of browser implementations, I really wish that the zoom would stay in place in the tab you're on until you manually reset it, and not auto-reset whenever you actually DO something.

      If a site needs zooming, and I follow links on it, chances are that I need to zoom on those pages too.
      And if I use a javascript picker, chances are that I suddenly can't read everything fine after the picker has completed if I couldn't before.

    43. Re:Legibility by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Name me a PDA or small tablet that I can use 30 years from now, and I'll buy it.
      Paper doesn't have that problem.

    44. Re:Legibility by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Linotype's "XSF"-marked fonts are usually pretty good, even at small sizes. I use Frutiger's "Avenir LT 45 Com" for a lot of printout; it's legible even at very small sizes, due to the hand-coded hints for when the font gets small. (The "standard" "Avenir LT 45" doesn't work well -- only the Com font with XSF hinting does.)

      They have a couple of good serif XFS fonts too, but no good monospaced ones, I'm afraid.

    45. Re:Legibility by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      As long as you keep a stock of spare, new batteries (I'd say one for every 5 years you plan to keep it, to be safe) you can use any open PDA 30 years from now...look at old PalmOS PDAs*, a Nokia N8xx/N900, SmartQ V-series, or an HTC Android device running a custom rooted build.

      Also paper is really hard to make backups of.

      *Be aware the browser license "expires" on these, so you'll need to use an alternate browser.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    46. Re:Legibility by orangesquid · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I can read it just fine. For the benefit of those with vision not as good:
      When is the course of human events it becomes necessary for one specie to
      dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to
      assume onions the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
      which the Laws of Mature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect
      to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the courses
      which inset them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident,
      that all men aree created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
      certain unalienate Fights, not going these are Lift, Liberty, and the
      pursuit of Hoppiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are
      instituted among Hen, deriving their just squares from the consent of the
      governor. That whenever amy Form of Government becomes destructive of these
      ends, it is the Right of the People to sitter or to abolish it, and to
      institute sex Government, laxing its foundation an such princilpes and
      organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
      effect their Safety and Hoppiness. Prudence, indeed, will Skate not
      Governments lions established should not be changed for light and transient
      courses; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more
      Exposed to suffer, while anvils are sufferable than to right themselves by
      abolishing the farms to which they are acoustment. But when a long rain of
      abuses and inspirations, pursuing invariably the sane Object evinces a
      design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it's
      their dub, to throw off such Government and to pray for new Guards for their
      future security. Such has been the potent sufferance of these Colonies: and
      such is now the necessity which constrains them to otter their former
      Systems of Government. The history of the resent Kite of Great Brittle is a
      history of reposted injuries and inspecting, oil having in direct abject
      submitted to a candid variable has refuted his Assent to Lows, the most
      wholesome and pressure importance, unless suspended in their operation till
      his Agent should be omitted; and when he suspended, he has utterly neglected
      to offend to them.He has refused to toss other Lows for the accomodations of
      large districts of people,unless those people would relinquish the fight of
      Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and
      formidable to tyrants only.He has called together legislative bodies of
      prizes unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their
      Public Records, for the sale purpose of fatiguing then into compliance with
      his measures.He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing
      with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.He has refused
      for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cruise others to be ejected
      whereby the Legislative Powers,incapable of Annhilation,have returned to the
      People at large for their exercise;

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
  2. Sort of by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

    There is the odd word here and there that I can't quite make out.

    I would tell you which words those are but...

    1. Re:Sort of by tehdaemon · · Score: 1
      When in the course of (unintelligible word) events...

      Try telling us that way.

      T

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    2. Re:Sort of by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      >> There is the odd word here and there that I can't quite make out.

      They put the word "penis" in a bunch of times to see if the grader actually read it all.

  3. ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    the world's smallest legible font.....peaks the smallest interest in my world

    1. Re:ironic by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it piques the smallest interest in your world too.

  4. Declaration of Independence by onefriedrice · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reading the font is also made easier by virtue of it being a text many of us would recognize. Our minds would fill in the gaps, even if it wasn't completely legible. I suspect it would be harder to read a paragraph with font that small if the text was completely unfamiliar.

    --
    This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    1. Re:Declaration of Independence by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      For legibility testing, it would have been much better if the words of the text had been printed in reverse order. (This is actually also a good trick for finding typos on a page. You read the text from the end backwards)

    2. Re:Declaration of Independence by IcyWolfy · · Score: 1

      Never saw the text before, and it was still quite legible. This was my first time reading those words, and I did have to do a google search to figure out why people were saying it was a familiar text.

    3. Re:Declaration of Independence by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      The Grandma Groping Child Molesters of the Department of Homeland Security wants you to know that document sounds like terrorist talk.

    4. Re:Declaration of Independence by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Reading the font is also made easier by virtue of it being a text many of us would recognize.

      From other comments I understand this is the US declaration of independence - which maybe a large fraction of US born and educated people would recognise, but most of the rest of the world not. I'm one of those. It being such a text makes it only harder to read for me, not easier.

      It does give a new dimension to "the fine print" though...

  5. Resolution useless, words/square inch needed by feedayeen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How many words can fit on the 3 by 5 inch flash card? Equations? Diagrams?

    1. Re:Resolution useless, words/square inch needed by AndrewNeo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I remember doing that in high school. Teacher said we could put anything on a 3x5" notecard for a math test, so I used Publisher and printed stuff out at font size 4 or so.

    2. Re:Resolution useless, words/square inch needed by harrkev · · Score: 3, Funny

      One time in college, the professor gave out .pdf documents of the class notes. We were allowed to bring three papers with us.

      Well, I had this great software that could print four pages on one piece of paper. and the HP laserjet in the lab could do the same thing -- instant 16 pages on one piece of paper. I even brought a loupe into class to help me read such tiny print. Fun days, good class.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    3. Re:Resolution useless, words/square inch needed by michael_cain · · Score: 1

      Best similar case...

      When I was in college, the physics prof got tired of students asking if they could bring this, or that, or whatever, to the exams. He finally declared that anything you could carry in under your arm was okay. One of the students was a 300+ pound offensive lineman on the football team, and walked into the exam carrying a TA under his arm like a textbook.

    4. Re:Resolution useless, words/square inch needed by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it have been easier to just learn the material?

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    5. Re:Resolution useless, words/square inch needed by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      A teaching assistant?

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
  6. Comment by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

    ts;dr

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Comment by qmaqdk · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'd like to see Microsoft designing a font like this. Of course they wouldn't be able to, since they suck and all.

      --
      My UID is prime. Hah!
    2. Re:Comment by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I too could not get through that small old wall of text. They sould have broken it up into millimeter sized paragraphs. Maybe I'll have my browser read it out loud with the volume set really really low.

  7. I can only read the first line by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Beyond the first line, the text becomes too dense and I lose track of what line I'm on. I only need that, in order to know what it says, but that doesn't really count.

  8. Fuzzy by meza · · Score: 1

    Is there fuzzy-ness built into the font or is that just firefox interpolating when I'm zooming in? One pixel is way to small on my screen to be able to read this, but maybe with larger pixels it would be ok. I guess I have to try to zoom in in gimp.

    1. Re:Fuzzy by meza · · Score: 1

      Replying to my self here. Zooming the image up in gimp seems to indicate that there is in fact some fussyness built into the font already. Pretty clever way of getting our brains to fill in the missing gaps, allowing for instance W to be only four pixels wide (not "technically" enough to get all the features). So even though I found it a bit hard to read I must say it's a pretty cool attempt. Would be interesting to read the ideas and thoughts behind it all but TFA doesn't state much.

    2. Re:Fuzzy by AlejoHausner · · Score: 1

      You've just rediscovered anti-aliasing!

  9. Original Source by fotbr · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Original Source by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      But how is that poor blogger going to keep up their ad revenue if Slashdot links the real story and not a third party version?

    2. Re:Original Source by noidentity · · Score: 2, Informative

      And if you don't want to install Java, there's an image of the text (at least I think this is the same, but the author didn't bother putting any on his site so I can't be sure). Not very readable; I think this could be improved on.

    3. Re:Original Source by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link. That .png version seem a bit more legible than the .jpg in TFA.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    4. Re:Original Source by omnichad · · Score: 1

      THANK YOU! This one has more of the color intact, and is MUCH easier to read.

    5. Re:Original Source by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Readability not bad; the biggest problem I have is to find the beginning of the next line. What you do not focus on is just a grey blob.

  10. Easy to Test by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just read it backwards, word for word. I have to admit it was a bit harder, but it was still legible for me. Considering that this is maybe three point font, I find it pretty noteworthy.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Easy to Test by demonbug · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just read it backwards, word for word. I have to admit it was a bit harder, but it was still legible for me. Considering that this is maybe three point font, I find it pretty noteworthy.

      I tried that, but the first word was "exercise" which just turned me off from the whole thing.

    2. Re:Easy to Test by arth1 · · Score: 1

      It may be 3 points (1.06 mm) on your display, but it certainly isn't on mine.
      This is a bitmapped font, and how big it is in points willl vary depending on the physical DPI of the displaying device.

    3. Re:Easy to Test by Barny · · Score: 1

      Looks like it was caught in meta mod, its sitting at 100% funny at the moment.

      Now if only they could get the javascript working properly for idle.slashdot.org my life will be a little simpler.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    4. Re:Easy to Test by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      I would but I suspect it says "Paul is Dead" at one point and "Love Satan" at another.

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
  11. Why is this even an idea? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    Like the latin, small print is an obvious bad-faith action and should be disallowed. Schools specify allowable fonts and margins, there is NO reason to let lawyers do less than a law professor.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Why is this even an idea? by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but what is the point of having a font so small it can barely be read? I can only think this is applicable to a very small display, where space is a premium and readability is of modest concern.

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    2. Re:Why is this even an idea? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Lawyers are gonna love it.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  12. World's most illiterate editors by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

    "There are at the moment the smallest legible fonts in the world."

    I will give you all about 10 seconds to spot the glaring error.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:World's most illiterate editors by PatPending · · Score: 1

      Y'all?

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    2. Re:World's most illiterate editors by tsa · · Score: 1

      Error? I see more than one.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    3. Re:World's most illiterate editors by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      I wasn't sure whether to ding them for the lack of commas around "at the moment". Are there other errors?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:World's most illiterate editors by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      there=their?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    5. Re:World's most illiterate editors by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Are there other errors?

      Well, the very first word is wrong. It should be They.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    6. Re:World's most illiterate editors by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1

      I thought he was trying to say, 'The smallest fonts in the wold exist.'
      Of course I was left wondering why anyone would need to say this, unless of course he was simply expressing, in an extremely round-about way, that some font exists.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    7. Re:World's most illiterate editors by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1

      really?

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
  13. Please, use proper units. by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

    How many pixels would be required to hold one LoC?

    1. Re:Please, use proper units. by Amouth · · Score: 1

      well just complete assumptions based on 2 min of looking around

      142,544,498 items in LoC

      ~100,000 words per Average book

      14,254,449,800,000 words per LoC

      This font is 500 words per 320x240 = 76,800 pixels

      ((14,254,449,800,000/500)*76,800) = 2.18948349x10^15 pixels per LoC

      a screen with 46,791,917x46,791,916 resolution per LoC

      or 516,387,615 count 30in Dell/Apple Displays per LoC

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  14. Warning! Source article image is a JPEG. by Brit_in_the_USA · · Score: 2, Informative

    If the PNG on the Slashdot article is derived from the linked source article then I am concerned that it may not be representative of the actual research as the source article offers the image as a JPEG - which will almost certainly have degraded the image quality.

    1. Re:Warning! Source article image is a JPEG. by yincrash · · Score: 1

      Lossless PNG compression will introduce no changes to how it is viewed in its source JPEG form.

    2. Re:Warning! Source article image is a JPEG. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Its JPEG form wasn’t its source form.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    3. Re:Warning! Source article image is a JPEG. by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      I think you are correct. Side-by-side, the PNG is more readable, IMO.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  15. Nice, but... what about a, e, and o? by No.+24601 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's pretty amazing. Except that the letters a, e, and o are nearly indistinguishable. To prove it is the smallest legible font, one would have to show that a long enough sequence of just the letters a, e and o could be spelled back by a reader. aeoeoaoeoeoaoeoaoeeeoaaaoeoaoa. I doubt it.

    Practically speaking, that would mean a word like onomatopeia would be hard to identify. Of course, the context in which a word shows up probably accounts for more than half of the reason a reader can identify that word so quickly in a sentence.

    1. Re:Nice, but... what about a, e, and o? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you check the original source, a e an o are distinguishable: http://mrl.nyu.edu/~perlin/homepage2006/tinyfont/index.html

    2. Re:Nice, but... what about a, e, and o? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking. How readable would the font be if the text were not English words, but something more difficult to fill in the gaps with, such as a big string of random characters. I don't think anybody would be able to "read" it with any consistency if they had to discern individual letters.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Nice, but... what about a, e, and o? by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      That's why my font doesn't use a traditional 'a' but a reduced version of uppercase 'A'. This may seem weird but fixes the problem you mention.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    4. Re:Nice, but... what about a, e, and o? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      404 not found. Can we get the actual font?

    5. Re:Nice, but... what about a, e, and o? by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Whoops, sorry, it's .html not .pl. 301ed it.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    6. Re:Nice, but... what about a, e, and o? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      yeah, but I mean some kind of downloadable font.. as far as can tell, there isn't one.

      No big deal, I was just curious about how it would show up in Terminal.

    7. Re:Nice, but... what about a, e, and o? by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Neither freetype nor Windows have any means to use pre-antialiased fonts. Your program would have to draw text by itself like mine did.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    8. Re:Nice, but... what about a, e, and o? by swb · · Score: 1

      Did you ever find it? I wanted it too.

    9. Re:Nice, but... what about a, e, and o? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm on Mac OS X, but I presume it has the same limitation.

  16. Useless by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    It may be 'readable' if I tried, but considering its hardly legible I stopped after the first line.

    Fitting more on a page isn't always the right goal, making useful information visible and readable is the goal.

    This sort of silly shit is only of interest to advertising agencies who like to put out commercials telling you a bunch of bullshit that isn't true and cover their asses by saying its not true in print so small you can't read it.

    Yes, I CAN read it. No, I wouldn't read anything presented too me like that, neither will anyone else, and thats most likely the point.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Useless by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but we can learn a lot about readability in general from this kind of research.

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
  17. Re:Nothing new. by oldspewey · · Score: 1

    I programmed a Sinclair ZX-81 you insensitive clod!

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  18. Legible partly due to the content? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was able to read it pretty well, but I think that was due in no small part to it being familiar content. If it weren't the Declaration of Independence, I probably would have had to strain a bit, so it probably has as much to do with gestalt theory as anything else.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:Legible partly due to the content? by angiasaa · · Score: 1

      I'm Indian, living in India, never been to the US and never read your Declaration of Independence before.

      I had absolutely no problem reading this font. I had to get a bit closer to the screen, but at 1.5 feet, it was clear as glass.

      I suppose this font would do very well for small devices like PDA's, Smartphones and other hand-held devices. On a computer screen though, it sucks. :) I usually sit with my eyes at least 2.5 to 3 feet from the screen, and at this distance, the font looks slightly fuzzy and I have to focus hard to maintain my word-tracking to prevent losing my position in the text.

      Furthermore, I realize that when we actually read text off a page, we tend to maintain our location by tracking the position of the word with respect to the edges of the screen. This helps us especially when re-focusing on textual data. Looking away from the screen and then looking back, we are able to quickly pick up where we left off.

      This text won't help us to re-focus on a computer screen. However, on small screens, where the edges are considerably closer, it is highly likely that re-focusing would not be as big a problem.

      I think it's a good idea to implement it as an optional package on small screen devices. Let the readers choose. I'm certainly against making it the de facto standard, if that's what they decide to do.

      --
      Geekism is your _only_ God!
    2. Re:Legible partly due to the content? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      I had no trouble and I've never read the Declaration.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    3. Re:Legible partly due to the content? by froggymana · · Score: 1

      I have a very hard time reading that font on my monitor, but my brother and parents have no problem what so ever reading it on the same monitor. I think it may have something to do with myself being red-green colour blind and that the design of the font depends on Red and Green (and blue..)

      --
      "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
    4. Re:Legible partly due to the content? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      This font depends on the brightness values, and not the colors. Being red-green color blind would make the color fringing a little less annoying.

      Make sure you're viewing the original:

        http://mrl.nyu.edu/~perlin/homepage2006/tinyfont/index.html

    5. Re:Legible partly due to the content? by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Which obviously explains why those of us who have never read the declaration of independence can read this text.

  19. Re:Nothing new. by La+Gris · · Score: 1

    Very true. And a similar font existed in varius Apple][ graphic mode rendered text. 5 pixels tall 3 pixels wide + 1 pixel for line and letter spacing and you had the font.

    Or if you go for the least pixels, use Braille points. 6 (2x3) points font.

    --
    Léa Gris
  20. How on earth is this news? by aarggh · · Score: 1

    Ummmm... they made a small font! Who cares? How does this crap even make it to tech sites? On another note, I once drew a stick figure with mud when I was a kid!

    1. Re:How on earth is this news? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Where's your fuzzy .png conversion of a fuzzy .jpg capture to provie it?

      If you don't have a way of showing us a lossless image that faithfully reproduces all of the degradation of the original .jpg compression, I don't think you can expect us to get too excited about this alleged stick figure in mud.

  21. A little late by mtinsley · · Score: 1

    Hasn't everyone who has ever taken a course where the professor says you can have a 3x5 note card during the exam already discovered this?

    1. Re:A little late by omnichad · · Score: 1

      printers have significantly higher DPI than computer screens. That really has nothing to do with engineering a font at the subpixel level. Printers don't even have RGB subpixels.

  22. Subpixel rendering by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

    How about using the positions of the red, green and blue areas of the pixels as their own mini-pixels to make even smaller fonts?

    Granted, it would only work on certain display types.

    1. Re:Subpixel rendering by sish · · Score: 1

      That's exactly was has been done here.

    2. Re:Subpixel rendering by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      Really? I zoomed in on it and it didn't really look like that's what he was doing. Almost all the pixels are black or gray.

  23. Flashback to TRS-80 Color Computer days by erroneus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That looks EXACTLY like the text I was staring at when I was a kid with my CoCo2 running a 72 column display. The fonts were all artifacted and all that. It was tough but it was at least a good thing that I was a kid and capable of dealing with it comfortably. The machine was originally intended to use a 32 column text display, but the 4 color "high res" display was too tempting for some to resist and they decided to write some word processing and desktop software for the thing. It worked...more or less... sorta... intolerable by today's standards but a feat in those days.

    1. Re:Flashback to TRS-80 Color Computer days by Seng · · Score: 1

      Ahh yes.. Telewriter-64! Remember that one?

    2. Re:Flashback to TRS-80 Color Computer days by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      Indeed, and like most people on slashdot who are old enough to remember 320x200 being a standard resolution I made my own 3x5 pixel font back then, is this "prof" a teenager or something?

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    3. Re:Flashback to TRS-80 Color Computer days by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I do... I do... did you ever advance into OS-9? Upgrade to the CoCo3 with 512K memory? (I had a friend who pushed it to 2MB!) Used an RGB display? Installed an MFM or RLL hard drive run from an ISA hard drive controller?

      It would be interesting to revisit those days again. So primitive yet so awesome in its day.

    4. Re:Flashback to TRS-80 Color Computer days by Seng · · Score: 1

      Bah, wasn't logged in...

  24. /facepalm by Tei · · Score: 1

    In JPG format.

    Heres the original source (you skip two useless blogs)
    http://mrl.nyu.edu/~perlin/homepage2006/tinyfont/index.html

    --

    -Woof woof woof!

    1. Re:/facepalm by Tei · · Score: 1
      --

      -Woof woof woof!

    2. Re:/facepalm by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      What you linked to is even worse, in some embedded plugin I'm hell not going to download.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  25. Ken Perlin? by kill-1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Of Perlin noise fame?

    1. Re:Ken Perlin? by ALecs · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perlin_noise

      And apparently he won an award for his work on Tron, too.

    2. Re:Ken Perlin? by bobl · · Score: 1

      Yup.

  26. Legible? But what were they trying to write? by Minwee · · Score: 1

    "When in the poutse of human events it becanes necessarv far pne people to dissoke the pollitical bands which have comectef then widh pnother amd oo assinne annony dne power of the oaritv the soparare anf oquol statipn fo whiich the Lows of Wature anif of Nowre's Gof..."

    If that's what the text is supposed to say, then heck yes it's a resounding succeff.

  27. If I wanted a case of eyestrain... by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

    If I wanted a case of eyestrain, I'd have bought a shiny new 3D TV which would at least allow me to oogle larger than life boobies while hurting myself.
    However, this font may produce some "hi-res" ascii movies... someone should run Deep Throat through the ascii encoder with it.

  28. Well-known: you only need 3x5 pix by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did Ken Perlin not come through the 8-bit era? "Everybody knows" you can fit the entire English alphabet comfortably into a 3 pixel wide by 5 pixel high monospaced grid, it's been done hundreds of times. (Proportional can be even smaller, of course.)

    1. Re:Well-known: you only need 3x5 pix by NixieBunny · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can't quite do that, since he's got both upper and lower case. Besides, he's playing with the RGB subpixels, which makes it trickier. Of course, the early computers like Apple ][ pushed the capabilities of NTSC color TV sets to the point that white pixels would pulsate in blue or yellow due to the chroma subcarrier phase shift (look that up), so they were sorta working at the subpixel level.

      I spent a good bit of time designing 5x7 fonts back then, since I was heavily into display hardware back when it took a board full of TTL to make a 256 x 128 pixel text display.

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    2. Re:Well-known: you only need 3x5 pix by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      not only has he got upper and lower case, his font is proportional as well

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  29. Smallest legible font... by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

    ...at what pixel density?

  30. What about Asian Fonts? by Dracker · · Score: 3, Informative

    One thing I've noticed while studying Japanese is that I need to use a larger font size when reading Japanese than I do when I'm reading English. The characters are just too complex to differentiate at small font sizes. You can't easily distinguish a character with N horizontal lines without the character being 2N-1 pixels tall (one for each stroke, and another for the gap between strokes). There are common characters with as many as 8 horizontal strokes (The kanji for "kaku" for example, which conveniently means to write). Even today's video games (on nintendo DS, for example) have 11x11 pixel Japanese fonts that can be very difficult to read.

    Any reduction in font sizes for readability must have separate standards for Asian characters, or the more complex ones will just appear as blobs.

    1. Re:What about Asian Fonts? by BetterSense · · Score: 1

      Older Japanese videogames often did not program in enough text fields to translate Japanese words into English equivalents. Japanese words other than jargon are rarely over 4 characters in length and names are typically 2 characters long, so even when the programmers delegated a generous 5 whole characters for name fields, the English translations ended up having chopped-off names. That's why the hero of Chrono Trigger is named Crono in the game. I didn't realize that till years after I played the game.

    2. Re:What about Asian Fonts? by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      There's a firefox plugin that ups the text magnification - but only for Thai script, leaving everything else the same. Same story, it's just harder to discern at smaller sizes. I think Japanese is worse since not only are there thousands of kanji, but they're more complicated than Thai script.

      However, native speakers (native readers) I don't think have too much trouble with small sizes. You couldn't get it as small as this example of English, but I have seen Thai script well below the limit of me being able to tell the characters apart that native Thais I was with could read with no issue.

    3. Re:What about Asian Fonts? by justme8800 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but don't forget to note that in a system like kanji, you don't need as many characters in the first place. The necessary height and width of each letter in the word "write" may be less, but you need five of them. An everyday example might be that text messages in Japan have a much shorter character limit, but you never feel more restrained (at least, I don't). The same amount of conversation takes up 15~20% of the number of characters it would in English.

  31. Legible, under good conditions by jandrese · · Score: 1

    This is only legible if you have a decent monitor and reasonably good eyeballs. Also helps if your monitors dot pitch is not excessively high and your web browser isn't set to automatically scale images (even minor artifacts are going to render this nigh-unreadable). Even then it's a bit tricky in a lot of places. I certainly wouldn't want to read a lot of text with this font.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  32. High schoolers will love this by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    I remember back in high school, some teachers would allow you to use a 3x5 note card for tests. Anything you could write on the note card, you could use in class. Think how much information you could cram onto it using a font this small.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:High schoolers will love this by PRMan · · Score: 1

      I had one class like that. I learned to write really small. 3 lines on the title bar and 2 per ruled line. I fit 3 units' formulas, vocabulary and examples on a single card, front and back. That was about 30 chapters' worth of stuff.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:High schoolers will love this by kbielefe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I remember those classes. I spent so much time trying to write really small that I accidentally learned the material.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
  33. Re:Nothing new. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    > And a similar font existed in varius Apple][ graphic mode rendered text. 5 pixels tall 3 pixels wide + 1 pixel for line and letter spacing and you had the font.

    FTFY.

    HGR. 280x190, with color bleed. Vertical lines would be green or pink.
    e.g.
    http://www.retrocpu.com/apple-ii/images/games/c/castle_wolfenstein.png

    > A Computer science professor called Ken Perlin

    Understatement of the year -- this guy _invented_ Perlin noise.

  34. Quite the contrary by mseeger · · Score: 1

    I consider it a quite large but ilegible font.... or is it just my eyes?

  35. but where do you get this ? by TravisHein · · Score: 1

    Couldn't see a link to actually download it after going thru to the actual original source page.

  36. dissolve the political bunds by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Try again. I bet somebody converted to jpg before converting back to png.

  37. Re:Nothing new. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    8 lines are a "waste." I had a 5 pt font on my HP48SX/GX. Someone even hacked in lower case case. (Technically, 6 pts, since you need 1 line for spacing.)

    See the editor included with the "Jazz" assembler.
    http://www.hpcalc.org/hp48/programming/asm/

  38. Re:Nothing new. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1
  39. bias by callmebill · · Score: 1

    I "read" a lot of that text from memory; my brain knows what the words are supposed to be because it's the danged preamble to the danged consitution. If they post a test with unfamiliar prose, I bet I'd have much more difficulty reading it.

    1. Re:bias by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1

      it's the danged preamble to the danged consitution

      Is it?

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
  40. Legibility? Who cares? by opentunings · · Score: 1

    Now I can fit ten times as many documents on my hard drive!

  41. Re:Legible? But what were they trying to write? by Megahard · · Score: 1

    That's 1337 in 1776.

    --
    I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
  42. Re:Nothing new. by bored · · Score: 1

    Which on my display is a shedload easier to read than the cited example.
    Course I had a hp48...

  43. so much for pivot by epine · · Score: 1

    Many small devices detect screen pivot these days, but this is a single orientation font.

  44. Further optimizing readability by heilbron · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the Slashdot article on how humans actually process words while reading This opens up chances for even further optimization by focusing on enhancing the readability of letters that mostly appear as first or last letters of words !

  45. Borderline legible. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    I thought this kind of font fell under the purview of pixel fonts. So it's not really anything new except that this particular font uses shades of grey to indicate certain shapes. I'm hard-pressed to call it truly legible. It's borderline; I have to concentrate a bit to identify certain letters and some of it I'm deciphering mostly because of context.

    I do think this font may have a future as legal info and disclaimer copy.

  46. Prior Art by purplie · · Score: 1

    On my Mac, 8.1-point Helvitica is more readable, has more leading, and takes up only a tiny bit more space. With a tweak to your system prefs*, 7-point Helvitica takes up about 2/3 the space and is equally readable. *Go to System Preferences > Appearance > Turn off text smoothing ..., and change the setting to 4.

  47. Low-res game font by CarpetShark · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Reading the font is also made easier by virtue of it being a text many of us would recognize."

    Personally, I recognise it because this looks like any other sans serif ~8 pixel-high font from any low-res game of the early 90s or so. Nothing special AT ALL here.

    1. Re:Low-res game font by shird · · Score: 1

      You do realise the font uses sub-pixel rendering? A pixel is made of 3 (or more?) sub-pixels on LCD displays. Which sub-pixels are lit depends on the colour of the overall pixel.
      Cleartype uses the same concept.

      So each pixel in the font is of a particular colour depending on what sub-pixels should be lit. Effectively the font actually uses less than 1 pixel for some features of a character.

      --
      I.O.U One Sig.
    2. Re:Low-res game font by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      If you click through a few links around this story, you'll find a guy who made a smaller font without subpixel rendering, for a MUD client, and other people talking about how old games used 4x3 fonts in some cases -- I forgot that 8 pixel fonts where NORMAL, not the small ones, on old systems. There's NOTHING new here. Even the subpixel rendering stuff was obvious at the time subpixel rendering was invented. One of the first things people discussed was how subpixel rendering would reduce the need for font greeking.

  48. Re:Nothing new. by wootcat · · Score: 1

    I programmed an Atari 800, so neener!

    --
    I'm really a low 5-digit Slashdotter, but this ID is where I am now.
  49. Re:Nothing new. by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    Exactly. I'd like to know where this Comp Sci professor got his qualifications, and whether he's old enough to have been around when computers had a res below 800x600.

  50. Tasword on zx spectrum? by orange47 · · Score: 1

    if I remember correctly, Tasword on ZX Spectrum used something similar.

  51. Finally something that fits by gsgriffin · · Score: 1

    my 24" LCD display is only 320x240 maximum resolution. I'm so glad that someone has made fonts that will help fit text on my screen. They show up nice and large on this display. What's everyone complaining about?

    --
    jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
  52. Can't read it. by antdude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My compound eyes were annoyed trying to read them, and I gave up. :(

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  53. This news brought to you by .. by roguegramma · · Score: 1

    This news brought to you by the smallest web host ..

    --
    Hey don't blame me, IANAB
  54. Perfect for EULAs. by jcohen · · Score: 2, Funny

    I imagine InstallShield will license these at once for click-through software licenses which need fine print -- really fine print.

    --
    "Imaginary solutions to real problems."
  55. A smaller one, using sub-pixel antialiasing by gringer · · Score: 1

    Meh, this one has smaller letters, and is still marginally readable. Although with the linked text, the words make it easier to work out what it says.

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
  56. the smallest font is in legal disclosures by swschrad · · Score: 1

    like credit card terms

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  57. Sub pixel font by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 1

    Ok, so he did a sub pixel font, which is a win for LCD screens, but that creates one big problem: the most popular small-form-factor devices these days have screens that automatically change their orientation when you rotate them. Suddenly those beautiful sub pixel fonts become a bunch of gibberish.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    1. Re:Sub pixel font by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Maybe instead of vertical line subpixels, we need concentric square subpixels. That way, the screen orientation doesn't matter. Now go patent that and make millions.

    2. Re:Sub pixel font by tepples · · Score: 1

      the most popular small-form-factor devices these days have screens that automatically change their orientation when you rotate them. Suddenly those beautiful sub pixel fonts become a bunch of gibberish.

      Which is why you need to use scalable fonts and test their readability when the engine draws them in both vertical and horizontal orientations. Hence ClearType.

  58. Legible? by who? by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    I'm looking at it with bifocals and without, no joy, I would have to use a reading glass to see this.

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  59. Not legible by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 1

    1280x1024 (native res) on a Dell 1905FP, I'm not more than 3 feet away, and it looks like crap. I can barely make some of the words out. I do wear glasses, but that would mean I *should* help, one would think. Scaling it up merely makes it look even shittier.

  60. Thanks! by harrytuttle777 · · Score: 1

    This means I will be able to fit twice as much of the Internet in the same space as the old internet.

     

  61. Nice... by rworne · · Score: 1

    Nice, the linked article got a hit in Trend Micro.

    Web reputation result: This URL is currently listed as malicious.

    Well, more likely something loaded on that page is.
     

    --
    I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  62. Antialiased? by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

    Call me a traditionalist, but a font is not defined to be antialiased. That's a color image, not a demonstration of a font.

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  63. Article down or moved by K.os023 · · Score: 1

    Link in the article is 404.

    --
    Ahhh, what an awful dream. Ones and zeroes everywhere... and I thought I saw a two.
    1. Re:Article down or moved by bughunter · · Score: 1

      Looks like they took down their entire news section.

      In fact, everything but their front page is 404. It looks like they took it down to prevent a true slashdotting... in a sort of "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" sense.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
  64. Re:Nothing new. by djdanlib · · Score: 1

    Yes, most of us old-timers remember tiny bitmap fonts on various systems and GUIs. Some of us even made our own for various purposes.

    This is a new thing because it's treating the RGB subpixels of an LCD as individual pixels, effectively tripling the horizontal resolution of the font. I don't remember seeing anyone on any system doing that. This allows characters to be more true to their intended forms. For example, the letter W can now be done in a much narrower space - 3 pixels wide to have a recognizable W is pretty good.

    In Braille, there needs to be space between the dots in each character and again between the characters and lines, so you need to more than double that. Go check your local ATM, pay phone, or restroom door sign.

    BTW... 6 points... while I see what you were saying, points are a typographical unit (approximately 1/72 of an inch) so you should probably say square pixels instead!

  65. My attempts by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Agree, this is not legible, especially when enlarged. And, here's my font from a good while ago which is not only slightly smaller (or would be if it was variable pitch) but also a good deal more readable. Can be enlarged without loss, too.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:My attempts by ZosX · · Score: 1

      Mod up people....his font is smaller and actually legible! He wins the internets!

    2. Re:My attempts by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      That is much more readable. No squinting on my end to read that unlike the font from TF(404)A

    3. Re:My attempts by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Hmm. An Angband playing mudder? I feel I should know you. But.. Poland?

    4. Re:My attempts by Kenoli · · Score: 1

      not only slightly smaller (or would be if it was variable pitch) but also a good deal more readable

      /agree

    5. Re:My attempts by shelterpaw · · Score: 1

      Your font is definitely more legible and smaller. You just guaranteed that no legal organization, car, drug or any other company will use it in their fine print, it's too legible, I'm sorry.

    6. Re:My attempts by magnamous · · Score: 1

      Nice! Is there a font file one can download?

    7. Re:My attempts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Agreed, you have the smallest unit size that can be seen. Congratulations. Not sure what you can do with it though. I doubt the ladies will be impressed either.

    8. Re:My attempts by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      I've got a smaller one again! Though not as legible: threepwood, and an italic one: thorpwood italic. Both are CC attribution only, so feel free to use them as you please.

    9. Re:My attempts by slashqwerty · · Score: 1

      I can't see the article. The sample on Slashdot is 302x220 pixels even though the summary says 320x240. I would imagine if that font were in its original 320x240 format it would be far more legible.

      With that said I assume the picture on Slashdot is just a scaled version of the original. In which case your font is wider but shorter. Your font spanned 40 lines while the font from the article only spanned 34 lines. And you managed to fit eight more words into the box.

    10. Re:My attempts by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Angband not as in the game but as in 2nd fortress of Melkor in Tolkien's books. But when speaking of roguelikes, I happen to be a DCSS dev.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    11. Re:My attempts by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      Nice work. Even with my glasses on I could barely read the example in TFS while I could read yours no problem at all.

      Having said that, the sub-pixel rendering in the example above looks all wrong on this monitor.

  66. Fleas Knees by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    There is another tiny font in development Flea's Knees that also exploits subpixel rendering to aid legibility.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  67. earliest computer terminal 1K or 2K ram by peter303 · · Score: 1

    When these cost several hundred dollars apiece. You really crammed in the 26/52 characters, 10 numerals, and bit of punctuation- 25+ bits each.

  68. Image in summary is blurry compared to original by mmj638 · · Score: 1

    The image in the summary is really quite blurry compared with the same thing on the original article, which is crystal clear.

    Original article: http://mrl.nyu.edu/~perlin/homepage2006/tinyfont/index.html

  69. Not new by Jiro · · Score: 1

    For quite a while I used a terminal emulator on an Atari 800 computer which gave an 80x24 fixed-width font. Atari 800 resolution is normally 320x192 making the characters 4 by 8 pixels including spacing. Since it was fixed width, it didn't get to make the i 2 pixels wide or the t 3 pixels wide, so taking that into account it was the same size as this font.

  70. To be or %^& to be? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Actually, if you don't know what comes after When in the course of and events then you probably failed elementary school history if you live in the US. By using a well known quote the mind, already knowing what to expect, will see what is expected. If he really wanted to show the readability of his font, then he should write something original rather than using a quote every US citizen has seen and internalized to one degree or another.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  71. Re:Nothing new. by N+Monkey · · Score: 1

    > A Computer science professor called Ken Perlin

    Understatement of the year -- this guy _invented_ Perlin noise.

    Agreed. There were two papers published in SIGGRAPH 1985 that really introduced "Solid texturing" to the computer graphics community. One of those was Perlin's An Image Synthesizer which has since formed the basis for numerous procedural texturing systems, especially those in ray tracing systems.

  72. Atari-Small by sfraggle · · Score: 1

    This doesn't seem much smaller than Tom Fine's Atari-Small font (maybe a pixel shorter?). I expanded this font to a full DOS extended ASCII version for my Doom source port.

    --
    were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
  73. A mere 5x3 bitmapfont fits 117 characters more!! by Barryke · · Score: 1

    In the example picture in the article, the space actually occupied by characters is 282x203px. Not QVGA. Its readable though.
    I even cheated in my disadvantage by actually cropping of some antialiasing thats part of the characters at the edge. So really, its somewhat larger. That is 57246 pixels.

    Vertical average line height: 203 / 43 lines = 5.9705882352941176470588235294118

    I assume this is the whole text: (excuse me, my copy paste for some reasons stops working when visiting Slashdot.com in Chrome)
    link .. upto "the State remaining in the mean".
    This is 3106 characters, including spaces and not including linefeeds. Mind that due to the small width of the image, some spaces got dropped saving a major percentage of space. This is not accounted for. I'm to lazy to actually count the characters and spaces in his image.

    Spread over 43 lines, this is 91,352941176470588235294117647059 characters per line average.

    Horizontal average character width: 282 / 91,35..etcetera = 3,0867285254346426271732131358661.

    I know that the characters A-Z 0..9 a..z and most punctuation fit in at least 5x3 pixels. In this case line height could be 6 pixels, or less if you interpolate on say, thirdh or half pixels.

    At 5x3 pixels, the same text would require (minus 43 space characters at end of lines, so 3063 characters) a 3063*3*6 pixels, = 55134.
    5 because lines are separated by a whole pixel.

    My solution takes less pixels. There are aproximatly 2112 pixels left, good for another 117 characters.

    --
    Hivemind harvest in progress..
  74. An experiment in tiny text masochism by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I can read the font on my 1280x1024 work machine screens, so next I tried it on my N900. It has a roughly 3.5" widescreen with an 848x480 resolution, so the individual pixels are practically invisible. Unless you look really close up (where you can sort of see some jaggyness if you strain your eyes) it just looks like some kind of magical infinite-resolution screen.

    I can still read it but it's really, really hard.

    When I go to portrait mode it's still barely legible, but it seems slightly easier than in landscape mode. Maybe the screen was originally manufactured to be used in portrait mode?

    Ow now my eyes hurt and I have to take a break.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  75. Nah, just noise by Possan · · Score: 1

    That just looks like noise to me... get it...? :)

  76. I'm not sure it's actually legible. by fishexe · · Score: 1

    "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one asshole to dissolve the political bongs which have connected them with another and to assume alimony...."

    I don't think the message is coming through quite right.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  77. Could have used this in high school by c0rnwallis · · Score: 1

    It would have made cheating a lot easier.

  78. How to remove ClearType from an image by tepples · · Score: 1

    We haven't even seen the text without clear type yet.

    Open it in GIMP, choose Colors > Components > Channel Mixer, and set Red and Green to 0% Red, 100% Green, and 0% Blue. This makes a grayscale image out of the green channel, which has the effect of removing all subpixel information from the image.

  79. "and to assume onions the powers of the earth" by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    Not.So.Legible...

    ROFL "Assume Onions" 8p

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker