Inspired by a casual misreading, I think you should make a font named "Autism".

(Reply) (Thread)

Taken under advisement.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Nice :-)

(Reply) (Thread)

Though I was just noticing that the lowercase italic "j" dot should probably more closely resemble that used for the "i".

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Huh, I think they're identical. Is it a quirk of hinting/antialiasing that they don't look the same in the png?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The png looks fine, but if I blow up the pdf, it seems quite noticeable.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Uh... they still look the same to me in the PDF, and they are point-for-point identical in the original font file. It does happen sometimes that in converting to truetype things get rounded differently from one character to the next, but frankly, I can't tell any difference whatsoever between italic i dot and italic j dot. Did you mean the italic dot should look more like the roman dot?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Hmmm. When I view the PDF with Apple's Preview the dot on the italic "i" looks bigger than the dot on the italic "j", the the effect becomes less noticeable the closer I zoom. If I view it with Acrobat Reader it seems fine. I I'll have to post some screen capture comparisons later. Apple must be doing some incorrect rounding or hinting. Which seems strange, as you'd think they would know TrueType really well.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

strange indeed. I would expect Apple would "get it right", so maybe there is something funny FontForge is doing with its TTF output.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Okay, I finally got around to putting up a comparison on Existential Type.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

And now I just figured out how to fix the crappy image resizing that was going on.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Aha, yeah, not only are the dots different sizes, but the font as a whole looks strangely dark in the first set. I wonder if it's something to do with hinting?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

That's really the only thing I can think of. Perhaps someone of the FontForge mailing list would know whether something with hinting is broken in Apple's Preview. I just checked and it looks fine in xpdf too.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Reely nice! :D

(Reply) (Thread)

Jason, I think you are reasonably readable, perhaps due to your modest slant and conservative forms

(Reply) (Thread)

His conservative forms are a by-product of his physcal responsibility.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

My fiscal responsibility is a side-effect of my careful spelling.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Careful spelling??? I saw all the ink you funnelled into that shady X character in the Capitol. It's so top heavy I don't think anyone could say you balanced your budget of ink.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Man, you are making some kind of profound pun that I am not getting.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

pun? Oh, I see the play on words: it's when you said that you were a careful speller, but then misspelled "physical" in the same sentence. Ahahaha. But wait, I misspelled it in my comment, too! So I guess your whole comment was a subtle criticism of my bad spelling. That's not very nice to do.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

in a serious response,

careful spelling = careful spending

is the pun I thought you were making in your previous reply.

So then I started asserting that you were a dirty politician with shady financial dealings with some anonymous (hence the X), immoral person on Capitol Hill. Throw in some disparaging comment about not having a balanced budget, and you have a cliché conservative rebuttal.

The pun is based on my opinion that your capital X looks asymmetric, with the top legs spread further apart than the bottom ones. This is either my eyes playing tricks on me, or intentional, and it doesn't look bad, but for the purposes of the pun it was apt to criticize it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)