IOW it may be more optimal in its real usage.
Maybe It's "more readable" for plane screen fonts than the other alternatives. It's not fair looking at a font on a 49" highdef ultrawide and saying "This isn't as good".
Indeed. That’s clearly missing from the readme.
> Maybe It's "more readable" for plane screen fonts than the other alternatives. It's not fair looking at a font on a 49" highdef ultrawide and saying "This isn't as good".
Yeah. Their benchmark was suboptimal conditions in an aircraft cockpit. I would assume that they tested drastically different lighting conditions and exotic factors (for a font designed for computers) such as motion, vibration, and crew exhaustion.
Edit: even better, grab a METAR from your favorite airport and drop it in at 8 point
Legability means you have to be able to differenciate words and letters. With a font specialized for aerospace use that probably also mean it has to retain that quality when printed on panels.
A special requirement I would think of is legability while in motion. Try taking your favourite, perfectly kerned font and reading it while shaking your head wildly in poor light conditions, then you get a hint of why this font isn't optimized for looks.
Like letters/words painted on the road for drivers to read them.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004269891...
I've also experimented with custom fonts on my (Garmin) watch and found that taller and narrowly spaced characters seem to increase legibility for me. This is for mostly decimal data, and I want to read with very brief glances, in challenging viewing conditions, rather than linger to appreciate the graphemes.
But another comment pointed out that B612 might be specifically tested in conditions with vibration and fatigue and other factors like that. I wonder how Atkinson compares?