Timeline for Why do some fonts make I, l, 1 look the same?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 9, 2022 at 0:58 | comment | added | Vikki | @AlanGilbertson: "In most true sans-serif typefaces, about the only difference between an uppercase "I" and a lowercase "l" is a slight difference in height and/or weight" - Which is especially stupid since it doesn't even look L-ey! | |
| Mar 27, 2021 at 17:48 | comment | added | OMA | @RoboticRenaissance : If by "formatted 1" you mean a 1 with a horizontal line at the bottom, it had it already, because the lowercase L letter had a horizontal line at the bottom, since typewriters wrote serif case like in this picture: bit.ly/3d9mLx7 . As you can see, the lowercase L letter can also look like a "1" number character. Also, the uppercase "O" character was not round, so it could also resemble a "0" number. Your hypothesis about the slash being used to differentiate a zero from an O letter is right. See this Wikipedia article on the slashed zero: bit.ly/3u0Fgup | |
| Feb 26, 2021 at 15:50 | comment | added | RoboticRenaissance |
@OMA Interesting. Do you think that's where the O with a strike-through came from? O + / to differentiate the O from 0. Oooh, you could also combine l + ``` + _ to get a formatted 1, I bet. Oh wait... the l and 1 kinda look alike anyways, don't they... Hm... And there was no backtick, was there...
|
|
| May 27, 2019 at 14:24 | comment | added | OMA | As a child I did use and old typewriter which my mom bought when she was young, and it indeed lacked a key for the number 1, since it saved an extra bar in the typewriter and key in the keyboard. You were expected to press the "lowercase L" key to get a number 1 (with what we now know as the "Courier" typeface). The numeric keys in this typewriter went only from 2 to 9. I think there wasn't a key for zero, either (had to use an uppercase O letter for zero). | |
| Jul 8, 2013 at 3:50 | vote | accept | Frames Catherine White | ||
| May 2, 2012 at 23:10 | vote | accept | Frames Catherine White | ||
| Nov 19, 2012 at 11:23 | |||||
| Apr 28, 2012 at 2:44 | comment | added | Zelda | @AlanGilbertson I certainly wasn't saying Arial is the only one to do this, I just couldn't ignore an opportunity to make fun of it :P. They obviously only changed the wrong things from Helvetica | |
| Apr 27, 2012 at 22:20 | comment | added | DA01 | So, uh...my point...there's various issues here. One is technology limitations (the typewriter). One is efficiency of design/production (cutting and pasting of digital type design). And one is simply style...modernist type families tend to be stripped of all ornamentation and distilled down to the simplest of forms. | |
| Apr 27, 2012 at 22:19 | comment | added | DA01 | Gill was...umm...an interesting person. That said, the lack of distinction between letters of geometric sans can be blamed on the Bauhaus, arguably one of the biggest proponents of modernism. | |
| Apr 27, 2012 at 22:17 | comment | added | Alan Gilbertson | Big +1 for the hysterical context... :) @BenBrocka: This issue is not limited to Arial. Its parent, Helvetica, has the same issue. In most true sans-serif typefaces, about the only difference between an uppercase "I" and a lowercase "l" is a slight difference in height and/or weight. It's rarely an issue with a "1". Gill Sans is one that comes to mind with perversely unadorned strokes for all three (although the uppercase "I" is chubbiest, lowercase "l" next, digit "1" skinny). But Gill was a bit of a pervert in other ways, too. | |
| Apr 27, 2012 at 21:41 | comment | added | Zelda | Are you implying the creators of Arial were lazy?! Absurd! | |
| Apr 27, 2012 at 20:13 | history | edited | Lauren-Clear-Monica-Ipsum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Apr 27, 2012 at 20:07 | history | answered | DA01 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |