B612 Font Family

On the other hand, putting crossbars on their I would make it much more visually similar to their 1 glyph. Mixing I and 1 (again, in waypoint names, for example), is much more likely and the strong visual difference in I and 1 by not having crossbars on the I seems like a better choice for the stated goals/applications of this font. ("...improve the display of information on the cockpit screens, in particular in terms of legibility and comfort of reading, and to optimize the overall homogeneity of the cockpit")

In my browser, I always use my own font choices (Firefox: Settings → Fonts → Advanced… → untick Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of your selections above), which makes me more sensitive to certain sorts of modifications: most significantly, I observe how unreasonably common it is for pages to change the whole document’s letter-spacing, normally to a positive value. (My firm opinion: you should absolutely never do this as a global thing, no exceptions.) I’m not certain if it might make more sense with some fonts than others, but the main thing is that I notice it.

So then, with this font, the main thing that immediately stood out to me is how wide its tracking is, so that I’d almost feel justified in adding `letter-spacing: -0.03em` (except that the shapes and some kerning pairs don’t work that way). Does it feel that way to others? And is there some kind of general trend in the direction of adding more space between letters?

(The font’s bold face, on the other hand, feels a mite cramped when in proximity to the regular weight, since it uses the same metrics. Also certain pairs are kerned much more tightly so that they feel out of place to me, e.g. Vi, DG (especially in bold). And as for the parentheses, I had to check that no, they hadn’t inserted a thin space inside the parentheses, the font really is just that weird.)

The main reason is that I need to use a syntax to represent a music sequencer such as ___65. B612 can separate two or more underscores perfectly.

For a long time, it's always my first choice of coding font although I have no idea on its origin. I just feel it looks great when I browse all Google fonts. But it's great to know the story behind it, and thanks for sharing.

There's a lot of distracting glitches like the K and Q having small gaps where strokes come together, and even glyphs like the N, M, Y and Z have weird little gaps at the joints, the F and B have a bizarre overhang at the upper horizontal stroke, the 1 and 6 have a weird cut in their strokes.

There are lots of weird confusing choices like the parenthesis being a round rect instead of a bow shape, the @ having a "complex a" inside, the 3 and 5 using a "cute" diagonal layout instead of the normal "rounded-and-rect layout".

Seems horrible for something that should be as simple as possible. The default system UI fonts like DejaVu Sans, Segoe UI, Roboto, etc. are far better.