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 current 1 (one) is very similar to l (lowercase l) especially in slab variant and for small font size. It would be great to have a variant with longer "upstroke" (not sure it's a proper name for the element of a glyph).
Currently (to get the result on the image above) I apply the following patch when building
The coefficient 2.0 (instead of 0.75) was empirically choosen among variants with step of 0.25. 2.25 makes the upstroke look too long and the digit itself unnatural, 1.50 makes the upstroke not long enough to distinguish from the current variant. 2.0 appears slightly better visually then 1.75.
Could you please add the variant described (both base and nobase)?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The current
1
(one) is very similar tol
(lowercase l) especially in slab variant and for small font size. It would be great to have a variant with longer "upstroke" (not sure it's a proper name for the element of a glyph).Currently (to get the result on the image above) I apply the following patch when building
The coefficient 2.0 (instead of 0.75) was empirically choosen among variants with step of 0.25. 2.25 makes the upstroke look too long and the digit itself unnatural, 1.50 makes the upstroke not long enough to distinguish from the current variant. 2.0 appears slightly better visually then 1.75.
Could you please add the variant described (both
base
andnobase
)?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: