Is This the Smallest Legible Font? Try Reading It

[hang-the-9]

I can read it on my monitor, I guess this would depend on the device and resolution. I work with some monitors where you can read tiny fonts perfectly (black and white radiology monitors). Always amazes me how clear tiny type looks on those, but the downside is that they cost 5k+.

I'm thinking the actual font will be clearer to see than a picture of said font that's in the artice.

 

[Railgun1369]

[citation][nom]theuerkorn[/nom]Nowhere close. The typical desktop monitor is 96 dpi (even the 24 inch Samsung I'm using right now). The Retina display is 326 dpi. But you may have meant resolution (total pixels)[/citation]
What I meant is what I said, but perhaps didn't explain the comparison I used effectively enough. In this case, I'll drop the other example and instead use pixel pitch. Smaller, tighter pixles will address the issue.

 

[coldmast]

Fine print is back, with a vengeance!

 

[belardo]

Stupid ugly useless font.

 

[kookoo88]

I can, but I don't want to.

 

[shaun_shaun]

just Ctl+mouse wheel on firefox !!! then u can read !!!

 

[Guest]

For the people saying CRT is better because of the resolution, I'm running 1600x1200 and the original version is definitely NOT legible. The Slashdot version however, is quite legible.

 

[bv90andy]

But I think a big problem is the fact that that picture is .jpg which really is not a good choice for a picture that needs all the details to be visible.

"My design assumes that screen pixels are horizontal striped as RGBRGB, as are most LCD screens these days,"

So in order for the font to take advantage of the form and size of each individual pixel, it would need to be a lossless image format.

 

[WyomingKnott]

Only about two-thirds of it, but I'm fifty.

 

[jwl3]

I'm focusing more on trying to read the passage than absorbing the content. In other words, defeating the entire purpose of the written word.

 

[Maxor127]

I can read at least 90% of it. Couldn't read "people" without zooming. The readability would probably be better without anti-aliasing.

 

[brando56894]

Im on a 20" LCD widescreen at 1680x1050 and I can barely read it. The smallest printed font size I can read is 8 or 9, and I have done so many times while making cheat sheets for my college classes lol

 

[robochump]

Perfect font for "The Fine Print"...yeah, the stuff you never read when committing to something!! lol

 

[king smp]

Id like to see it on my Trio 3000 400x240 display.
Looking at it on a 1920x1080 22 inch isnt the way it was meant to be used.
It is designed for mobile devices
And i bet if you switched your res to 800x600 it would look great

 

[im_thelumberjack]

It starts to become impossible for me to read it after a few lines as I start to re-read lines.

 

[Gin Fushicho]

I can read it, but barely, and it's a pain in thee ass, and a strain on my eyes, which are already wearing glasses. 24" 1920x1080 display.

 

[unwanted]

I wouldn't say its "readable". You can read it because you know what the words look like and even though its so small and some of the letters look almost the same your brain guesses that its this word cos even though a letter might be this one or this one all togther the shape of the letters look like they form this word.

I'd be willing to bet if you wrote say 10 16 random character passwords then anyone reading it would get most of the passwords wrong which to me means it's not "readable".

 

[eddieroolz]

I can read it too, but it's an exercise in frustration.

 

[maigo]

I CAN read it... I don't WANT to

 

[Guest]

I think I can make fonts which are more readable and not less tiny.

By the way, those who are partially color-blinds may not be able reading his text, because perlin relies heavily on the ability to see detect slight differeces in colors.

Yet, I like the color illusion tricks which perlin uses.