Talk:Atkinson Hyperlegible

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Homoglyph sets in Atkinson Hyperlegible

• ... that to optimize Atkinson Hyperlegible (pictured) for visually impaired people, its designers intentionally broke the rule that a typeface should be uniform? Source: Fast Company: This typeface hides a secret in plain sight. And that’s the point
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kaunas Soviet of Workers Deputies

Moved to mainspace by Tamzin (talk) and Sir-Joshi01 (talk). Nominated by Tamzin (talk) at 11:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Tamzin: Good article. Article is sourced, hook is interesting, and the QPQ is done. Approving. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

"Atkinson Hyperlegible uses many circles, in a nod to braille."

This appears in the current version as an image caption, with the image pointing out the circled tittles in ië?;. Is there a source – like either the Braille Institute or the typeface's designer – that talks about this being a consideration? Or is this original research? This seems to be a bit of a stretch; after all, lots of typefaces have circular dots and tittles, perhaps even most of them (although I can't cite a survey of fonts for that claim; I suspect square tittles are more common in sans-serif typefaces while circles are near-universal for serif ones). oatco (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, oops, never mind: the referenced Dezeen article does say Meanwhile, circular detailing on many of the letters is designed to evoke braille dots, as a nod to the history of Braille Institute. I dunno, the "nod to braille" drew my attention, because circular dots are such a basic thing in fonts anyways. oatco (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Oatco: To be honest, when I saw that in Dezeen I though "Eh, really?" for the exact reasons you describe, but it's consistent with what the Braille Institute has said. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"available under the SIL Open Font License" & "released it under the SIL Open Font License on its website"

While the "End-User License Agreement" link on https://brailleinstitute.org/freefont currently leads to a license which quite certainly is a derivative of the SIL Open Font License, it's text isn't identical and its resulting effective conditions may also be slightly different. Even though that "ATKINSON HYPERLEGIBLE FONT LICENSE" is still quite similar to the SIL Open Font License Version 1.1, calling it the "SIL Open Font License" despite these minor (but maybe partially significant) differences is somewhat misleading. Das-g (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Das-g: I think this was just an ambiguity in how I'd referenced it. This better? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. Thank you! (I wasn't aware that it was available on Google fonts under a different license than on the institute's own website. Should make https://github.com/googlefonts/atkinson-hyperlegible/issues/1 be mentioned as an additional source for that fact, such that it's clear that this isn't just a mistake Google made when including the font in Google fonts?) Das-g (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that source would run afoul of WP:SELFPUB, since it's a third party making claims about the Institute, but in the related issue he links to [1], where the BIA explicitly says it's under the OFL. Does Special:Diff/1134468427 work for you? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)