Curlier and rounder brackets

[veeven]

Expanding on this tweet.

When I started using Hack, braces, brackets and parentheses stared looking straighter and less distinguishable for me. I think they can be a bit more curly/rounded than they are.

For comparison, I started looking at monospace fonts that I used earlier.

Now I realize that part of the reason is that I used a lot to seeing Luxi Mono and/or Input Mono most of my day. However, I think Hack can benefit from bending its braces a bit.

(On the contrary, Hack bent its less-than and greater-than more than enough. Separate issue, may be.)

[chrissimpkins]

Noted @VeevenV. Let's leave this open for some additional feedback to see what other users think.

[veeven]

I've just seen it. Similar feedback in issue #103.

[chrissimpkins]

Sending this issue to @burodepeper so that we can include it as part of our usability analysis. We will address this. More info in this thread when available.

[alphapapa]

I would prefer if they were left as-is. I have no trouble distinguishing them. Been using DejaVu Sans Mono for years. And while Input Mono is kind of a neat font, I think its braces are quite ugly.

[chrissimpkins]

@alphapapa Thanks for your feedback. This is, in part, a style issue however we want to determine whether there are source code usability concerns that should be addressed with these glyphs. We are developing an approach to systematically and more objectively examine issue reports like this one. These tools are all in development and we are not prepared to generate proposals or make decisions quite yet. Our thoughts about any changes will be based on examination of the current shapes and spacing, as well as common collocalizations of adjacent glyphs and spaces, across a broad range of source code. This will be vetted through public review of these proposals before we introduce changes in the design. For this issue, we will post here. There are numerous other similar issues (both reported and not at this stage) that we intend to approach in the same fashion. Please keep an eye out for more information and continue to provide both positive and negative feedback as this process begins to shed some light on type + source code.

cc: @burodepeper

[burodepeper]

A question to @VeevenV and @alphapapa, at what type-size and are you using Hack? And as an addition for @VeevenV, could you post a screenshot where you feel the brackets aren't distinguishable enough?

[chrissimpkins]

@alphapapa Incidentally, the usability approach itself, and the tools used to conduct it, will be open to public review, scrutiny, and contributions in other Github repositories. We are at a very early stage of development and are still having discussions about the approach and tooling before we produce an initial public “release”. Once this takes place, I invite you to weigh in on the approach, the data that we are using, and the tools that are developed as well.

[veeven]

@burodepeper I use Hack at 11pt size. Here are a couple of screenshots:

[burodepeper]

@VeevenV Thanks! I think I see what you mean. Have you tried switching to a syntax highlighter with a higher contrast? I am not saying you should have to, because I feel that as a typeface there's a certain promise of proper distinction between characters, but in your situation, it seems to me the colors are not really helping.

[veeven]

@burodepeper I am actually using a higher contrast variant of zenburn color scheme. But, zenburn is known for low contrast. ;-)

Another thing in my set up is that braces and parens are colored based on their level. That's actually helping me I guess. If I disable that rainbow-delimeters mode, here is how things look:

Things are a bit better in higher contrast themes, especially lighter themes. (But, I cannot keep looking at them for long.) Here are screenshots from Firefox Dev Tools.

[burodepeper]

@VeevenV Thanks for your input. We are certainly going to focus on these (low-contrast) issues, because the typeface should be optimized in first without color-coding. You could try to use a high-contrast syntax-theme, and lower the brightness of your monitor. I've designed minimal-syntax for this (and my own) purpose.

On a side-note, those three characters (వీవెన్) that make up your name, they look beautiful! What script is that? And PS, the third one is a snake, isn't it?

[veeven]

@burodepeper Thanks for caring. I'll try lower-the-brightness technique.

My name is in Telugu script, my native language. No, the third letter isn't a snake. :-) Here is a more snake-y character: శీ. Telugu isn't logographic.

[chrissimpkins]

You could try to use a high-contrast syntax-theme, and lower the brightness of your monitor

Interesting. Haven’t heard of this technique before.

@VeevenV what typeface do you most commonly use for source code/in text editors? Has it always been Luxi and Input?

[burodepeper]

You could try to use a high-contrast syntax-theme, and lower the brightness of your monitor.

I believe it's proven that black on white is easier to read, and the contrast of colors vs black text is more pleasant in my opinion. Also, lower brightness is better for your eyes, and significantly reduces power consumption and warmth the screen generates. Give it a try, it's becoming a trend! And, it's good for the environment!

[veeven]

@chrissimpkins Yes, mostly Luxi and Input. Consolas gets in my way often.

[chrissimpkins]

One of the things that we are proposing is to objectively examine not only this typeface but others as well. There is a wide body of other shapes / styles out there and I think that we have a lot to learn from the years of development that have gone into other typefaces whether they were designed specifically for source or not.

[alphapapa]

@burodepeper I'm using Hack at 9pt size in Emacs on a 96dpi monitor. Here's a sample:

@chrissimpkins Thanks, sounds like Hack is in good hands. :)

[burodepeper]

@alphapapa thanks!

[vbsessa]

+1 for this.
I think these glyphs could be more like Luxi Mono ones, especially the ">" symbol: it's angle is too acute.

[chrissimpkins]

@burodepeper any interest in looking at this for one of the upcoming releases?

[burodepeper]

@chrissimpkins Sure. I've self-assigned it.

[chrissimpkins]

@burodepeper Sounds great David. This involves a number of important, commonly used glyphs in source code. Changes here will be very apparent in source code text. Look forward to seeing what you come up with.

For every one of my biases about these shapes (and each of those expressed in this thread), there will be a counter bias out there. For important "high value" glyphs like these it would be worth trying to determine what we are trying to optimize so that we know whether we have achieved that goal rather than this being a discussion that amounts to subjective comments like "I like this better", "I like that better".

[chrissimpkins]

Something that you want to add on for v3.002 @burodepeper ?

[burodepeper]

@chrissimpkins yep!

[chrissimpkins]

@burodepeper putting you in touch with @vl4dimir who is maintaining a derivative, modified and contributed brackets for the alt-hack repo, and expressed an interest in work on the upstream brackets. Perhaps the two of you can divy the source code review for idiomatic use and design changes up in some fashion?

See issue report #363

[jdw1996]

Is anyone working on </> and (/)? If not, I'd be willing to give it a shot.

[chrissimpkins]

@vl4dimir had an interest but didn't have time when last discussed it. Let's open as new issue reports for each of the separate pairs of glyphs where we can discuss. Be interested to see images of what you / anyone else with an interest has in mind for these glyphs. These will be high profile glyphs in code so we will do some investigation of source for usage, then review design changes in source before we accept changes. Look forward to seeing your designs!