Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texture Healing for Monospace Fonts

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 103 posts

Re: Texture Healing for Monospace Fonts

#91

Post by deaddodo »

virtualritz wrote: post #87
deaddodo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. The grid is not affected. The resp. letters stay within their grid-aligned bounding boxes. Their own examples literally show that this isn't the case. Just look at the "filming" example, with the "m". In addition, their five fonts showcase shows that letters that "need space" can overbound. I think it's accurate to say that a word respects it's bounding box, but interior glyphs don't necessarily. Unless their ow…

> Their own examples literally show that this isn't the case. Just look at the "filming" example, with the "m". In addition, their five fonts showcase shows that letters that "need space" can overbound. They don't, it's an optical illusion. That's the whole point. Read the whole text and/or open the example images which show the different versions of 'm' and 'i' side by side and measure their bounding boxes. Or open…

> The only option really, to respect the grid, is staying inside equally spaced bounding boxes that are the core property of a monospaced font.

...or just making sure your immediate neighbors and yourself equal their previous total bounding box? "Needs space" glyphs borrow from "gives space" glyphs, but only in the immediate vicinity not in totality. Spaces are neutral characters.

Re: Texture Healing for Monospace Fonts

#92

Post by phanimahesh »

crazygringo wrote: post #51
starkparker wrote: post #4

It bothers way me more that the same glyph can differ within the same word than it satisfies me that the glyphs are very slightly more proportional. The third "m" in the "minimum" example being narrower than the "m"s adjacent to the two "i"s makes my brain itch. Same for the "i"s in "miniature". Makes me feel like I'm looking through a fish-eye lens, or that my glasses prescription is off.

Yup, I unfortunately have to agree. It's a cool idea, but when I type "gimme" in the editor, the two adjacent m's are different widths, and it looks sooo wrong. Interestingly enough, the fact that letterforms change as I type doesn't bother me the way I thought it would -- turns out I'm already kinda used to it from ligatures. So points for being a clever idea to try out, but unfortunately what it does to a word like…

The effect is not as pronounced and almost indistinguishable in xenon radon and krypton. It's just neonand argon that look horrible in gimme.

Re: Texture Healing for Monospace Fonts

#93

Post by dragonwriter »

sublinear wrote: post #44
andix wrote: post #23

Tried it here: https://monaspace.githubnext.com/ It might be nice for reading code, but for editing code it feels weird that glyphs change their size while you type. Also readability wise I'm not convinced. In the example there is a combination like "_m_", in this case the lette m is much nicer to read. But then i typed "mml", which makes the two m's very different looking. Also the line number 10 on top of 11 looks…

> It might be nice for reading code, but for editing code it feels weird that glyphs change their size while you type. Applying display typography techniques to code is an objectively bad idea for both reading and writing. They even enable ligatures by default on the demo which is far worse. For those of us who actually have to get work done and not just fetishize code and fawn over aesthetics, it's a fundamental req…

None of the subjective preferences here are “objective”, and the added insulting language for people who disagree makes it worse, not better.

Re: Texture Healing for Monospace Fonts

#94

Post by adastra22 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #80
kdmccormick wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> can use proportional fonts with the first example too. what, how? Wouldn't the number of spaces you'd need to prefix lines 2 and 3 with vary between fonts?

Not if you don't care about "one" exactly lining up with "two". foo.bar(one two, three) //this is fine, and slight drift on different fonts is also fine I would have demonstrated in a proper proportional way but HN destroys NBSP.

That was the whole point.

Re: Texture Healing for Monospace Fonts

#95

Post by Dylan16807 »

adastra22 wrote: post #94
Dylan16807 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you don't care about "one" exactly lining up with "two". foo.bar(one two, three) //this is fine, and slight drift on different fonts is also fine I would have demonstrated in a proper proportional way but HN destroys NBSP.

That was the whole point.

You dismissed the idea as "if you stop doing thing which benefit from monospaced fonts", suggesting that monospaced fonts are better in this situation.

My argument is that both fonts are just as good in this situation, and monospaced fonts aren't benefiting here. You don't need monospaced fonts to use formatting 1, you can just choose formatting 1 and then use either kind of font.

Doesn't that mean I disagree with your post?

Re: Texture Healing for Monospace Fonts

#96

Post by adastra22 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #95
adastra22 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was the whole point.

You dismissed the idea as "if you stop doing thing which benefit from monospaced fonts", suggesting that monospaced fonts are better in this situation. My argument is that both fonts are just as good in this situation, and monospaced fonts aren't benefiting here. You don't need monospaced fonts to use formatting 1, you can just choose formatting 1 and then use either kind of font. Doesn't that mean I disagree with yo…

Having the "one" line up with the "two" is the benefit here, and the point of the monospaced font. If you don't care about that, fine. But objectively lots of people do.

Re: Texture Healing for Monospace Fonts

#97

Post by Dylan16807 »

adastra22 wrote: post #96
Dylan16807 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You dismissed the idea as "if you stop doing thing which benefit from monospaced fonts", suggesting that monospaced fonts are better in this situation. My argument is that both fonts are just as good in this situation, and monospaced fonts aren't benefiting here. You don't need monospaced fonts to use formatting 1, you can just choose formatting 1 and then use either kind of font. Doesn't that mean I disagree with yo…

Having the "one" line up with the "two" is the benefit here, and the point of the monospaced font. If you don't care about that, fine. But objectively lots of people do.

Well I'm saying that it does still line up in a reasonable sense, at least from the perspective of someone that would use a proportional font at all and isn't looking for a grid.

It's important to note that I'm not comparing monospace versus proportional. I'm saying that "formatting 1 with proportional font" isn't really worse than "formatting 2 with proportional font". Both of them are going to have problems from someone that really likes monospacing.

Re: Texture Healing for Monospace Fonts

#98

Post by adastra22 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #97
adastra22 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having the "one" line up with the "two" is the benefit here, and the point of the monospaced font. If you don't care about that, fine. But objectively lots of people do.

Well I'm saying that it does still line up in a reasonable sense, at least from the perspective of someone that would use a proportional font at all and isn't looking for a grid. It's important to note that I'm not comparing monospace versus proportional. I'm saying that "formatting 1 with proportional font" isn't really worse than "formatting 2 with proportional font". Both of them are going to have problems from so…

"If you stop doing things which derive benefits from monospaced fonts, then you can get away with a proportional font."

Re: Texture Healing for Monospace Fonts

#99

Post by Dylan16807 »

adastra22 wrote: post #98
Dylan16807 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I'm saying that it does still line up in a reasonable sense, at least from the perspective of someone that would use a proportional font at all and isn't looking for a grid. It's important to note that I'm not comparing monospace versus proportional. I'm saying that "formatting 1 with proportional font" isn't really worse than "formatting 2 with proportional font". Both of them are going to have problems from so…

"If you stop doing things which derive benefits from monospaced fonts, then you can get away with a proportional font."

No, that's the opposite of my point.

"If you already decided to have a proportional font, you don't need to stop doing any things."

My argument is that "need to stop doing X" is not true for either kind of font.

Re: Texture Healing for Monospace Fonts

#100

Post by Terretta »

jrmg wrote: post #57
mortenjorck wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this all makes a lot more sense when seen in a practical context rather than the blown-up examples in the feature documentation. Take a look at the code editor examples on the main site for Github Monaspace: https://monaspace.githubnext.com Scroll down to the "Five Fonts" section and try unchecking the texture healing toggle. The fisheye effect you get when looking at the font in 200pt goes away at 16pt, and…

I can’t help but think that the example in that page has used ‘timing’ so much to deliberately show off texture healing - it’s a great example because the ‘m’ can expand in both directions and the ‘i’s end up looking the same. I suspect the state where different width variants of the same letter are close to each other would happen a lot more in the real world.

Right, and they show it above "time" where the "e" can't "give the space" so you can understand if it actually bothers you (probably not unless you stop and stare):

    const timing_end_m_ = () => {
      let timing_end = new Date();
      let time_spent = timing_end - timing_start; // in ms
Post reply on HN