{ is annoying

[Schabaani]

{ symbol is annoying.

[kay54068]

Agreed, the { symbol is quite peculiar. What is the intent behind its design?

[9px]

disagree!
more difference between { } and [ ] lead to more readability!

[Schabaani]

Sure! However, this is annoying! I am sure they can make it better.

[rwmitchell]

What exactly makes it annoying? The first time I heard someone refer to these as something other than curly-braces, they called them buzzard wings. That was 30+ years ago. This symbol still seems to match that.

[yavorski]

It is actually quite cool, I like it.
Thin @ is more annoying imho.

[Schabaani]

@rwmitchell and @yavorski

Compare to other symbols and other fonts, it has sharp edges that make it an angry symbol. Also, it is not smiling anymore :D :} .

[rwmitchell]

it is also much more obvious as to what it is. The one on the second line looks too much like () for me.

[tkircher]

The defining characteristic of a curly bracket is that, in the left curly bracket case, from middle point to top, and from middle point to bottom, the stroke is always moving left to right. It is objectively incorrect for it to curl back. So if you want to exaggerate the features of a curly bracket, do not make it into a different glyph entirely.

[jnfingerle]

[...] defining characteristic [...] objectively [...]

@tkircher, you're obviously referring to some commonly accepted definition of curly brackets, that I'm not aware of, maybe a standard by a standard body? Could you provide us with a link to said definition?

[RGB-es]

The defining characteristic of a curly bracket is that, in the left curly bracket case, from middle point to top, and from middle point to bottom, the stroke is always moving left to right. It is objectively incorrect for it to curl back. So if you want to exaggerate the features of a curly bracket, do not make it into a different glyph entirely.

Beside the fact that there is not such a thing as "objective truth" on type design, and accepting that Intel One Mono goes far beyond any other font on that direction, there are other examples of fonts where curly brackets "curl back" by different amounts: even iconic designs such as the original IBM Courier do that to an extent (small, true, but clearly present, you can see it in the Wikipedia article), but also Fantasque Sans Mono, Luxi Mono, etc. You find it also in proportional fonts such as EBGaramond, ETbb, Gentium (where the middle point even goes a bit downwards for the left bracket and upwards for the right one), Vollkorn, etc.

Again, for Intel One Mono is far more pronounced than for any other font, but it's not new. Just my 2 cents.

[gburke-ppb]

It's designed that way so that people who are visually impaired can more easily see that it is, indeed, a curly bracket, and not something else, based on feedback from visually impaired people.

It should stay as it is, as the font is designed for them.

[rwmitchell]

if it was possible to have only one font that made everyone happy, we'd have only one font. we don't, we have lots of fonts to choose from.

having said that, it does appear to be missing some symbols I normally have in my vim airline status :-)

[jeffalder]

if it was possible to have only one font that made everyone happy, we'd have only one font. we don't, we have lots of fonts to choose from.

This. If you don't like the curly braces, then don't use this font.

https://www.codingfont.com/ can run an elimination bracket between pairs of fonts until it helps narrow down to one you like. This font is not yet included in its list.

When I ran this, I landed on Hack. I'm testing this font to see if I like it better. (So far, I still like Hack better.)

[alexmyczko]

I landed on https://github.com/blobject/agave

[tkircher]

If you don't like the curly braces, then don't use this font.

The better solution is for everyone to share their opinion, discuss it, and if necessary, fork the font to modify it as desired. More readable fonts benefit everyone.

As far as the typography of curly brackets, here's a decent article:

https://macrotypography.blogspot.com/2015/11/curly-braces.html

Considering how many people find those two glyphs alone obnoxious, and love the rest of the font, it should at least be a matter of consideration. It's ironic though, to argue on one hand that typography is purely subjective, while also arguing on the other hand that empirically, some people find other fonts more difficult to read.

[jnfingerle]

Considering how many people find those two glyphs alone obnoxious, and love the rest of the font, it should at least be a matter of consideration.

At the time of my writing the first item in this discussion has 4 👍 , but 6 👎. This should be part of any consideration, as well.

It's ironic though, to argue on one hand that typography is purely subjective,

In fact, nobody did that. Saying, correctly, that there is no objective truth, especially in how glyphs are supposed to look, doesn't rule out that you may gain some objective insights into certain aspects. It's still subjective, how you decide to weigh those objective insights. In other words: There might be objective data, but no objective truth in what to conclude from that data. The latter is rather part of the design decisions.

[rwmitchell]

@jnfingerle do you pick and choose and much? Just below that it has:

That shows 13 in favor of the current glyph and 1 rocket!. Personally I think that shows how little this ad-hoc voting really means, but there it is - the current glyph is clearly the winner.

[jnfingerle]

@rwmitchell Maybe it's me not being a native speaker, but I'm getting the impression that you disagree with something I wrote, but I fail to see where. Could you clarify?

[rwmitchell]

Right above. You chose the up/down thumbs for one post to make your point that the current braces were not well liked, when only a couple posts below it shows the exact opposite. Being first post doesn't make the first post special, just makes it first.

[jnfingerle]

@rwmitchell

@tkircher wrote

Considering how many people find those two glyphs alone obnoxious

, to which I replied that more people disagreed than agreed with the first post's

{ symbol is annoying.

The first post is special in that it's by the original author of this issue, that's why I referred to that post and didn't write a PhD about voting on Github in general.

Anyway, you misinterpret what I wrote, my point never was and never will be "that the current braces were not well liked". My point was and is "even if some people don't like them, even more people disagree with that".

[mempler]

I would appreciate a alternative to the { aswell. I'm someone who does a lot of C/++, and Rust code, there, you see a lot of {, }. They kinda hurt my eyes, not in a sense of annoyance but rather in General, as if I'm forced to focus on them because of how harsh it feels.

I don't agree that it should be changed in the first place, but create an alternative as an otf variable for people like me. People can then choose which one you would like to use.

[deepcoder]

They do kind of make me think I am in the 'bat cave' Robin.... ;-}

[mempler]

Oh for sure! LOL

[alexmyczko]

@deepcoder nethack.org?

[JohnVillalovos]

The unique style (in my experience) of the curly braces is one of the main reasons I decided to use this font. Please keep them.

[Schabaani]

The unique style (in my experience) of the curly braces is one of the main reasons I decided to use this font. Please keep them.

I agree with you. It is unique. I don't want the symbol to miss its uniqueness. But I believe they can improve it.

[tkuraku]

I think the curly braces are great as is. Symbols are very nicely differentiated.

[sonulohani]

The curly braces are great in this font, highly readable. It doesn't need any change

[abhibeckert]

I also don't like how much it goes back on itself and think it could be improved. I'd love to see a few variants created and proposed to the community, in order to decide on a new glyph that everyone is happy with.

I'm not qualified to create those variants, but as a quick concept - here's how I'm imagining the glyph could look could look rendered at 13px after amending it to be closer to a traditional curly brace:

[jnfingerle]

@abhibeckert The font was designed for glyphs to be easily distinguishable, and people use this font for exactly that reason. There are lots of different monospaced fonts around with different design goals, so if one doesn't agree with those goals, one can use a different font. That said, I have to assume that you agree with the design goals of this font, but I fail to see how your proposal helps to better achieve those goals. If anything, it makes things worse.

[abhibeckert]

(sorry not sure what happened - github submitted my comment while I was half way through writing it - looks like it was a bug in github rather than an error on my part - I've deleted the partial comment)

I have to assume that you agree with the design goals of this font, but I fail to see how your proposal helps to better achieve those goals

I absolutely do, and I'm contributing to this discussion because I'm using this font and love it.

My own vision isn't perfect, especially towards the end of a long day. I have tested my proposal and it is at least with my vision on my display and the font size I use, perfectly distinct. More work would be required to verify it in other cases. I definitely wouldn't want any change to be made that causes problems for some people who use the font.

[jnfingerle]

@abhibeckert Ok, I deleted my reply to said partial comment.

Yes, I am in favour of testing, if a change should be considered. But, if you calculate a "distance" between the current { and [ in comparison to your example, this distance has been reduced. That leads me to believe that your example would have worse results in testing. Obviously, it's only guessing at this point.

[tkircher]

@abhibeckert The font was designed for glyphs to be easily distinguishable, and people use this font for exactly that reason. There are lots of different monospaced fonts around with different design goals, so if one doesn't agree with those goals, one can use a different font. That said, I have to assume that you agree with the design goals of this font, but I fail to see how your proposal helps to better achieve those goals. If anything, it makes things worse.

The curly bracket makes this font totally unreadable. It literally gives me a migraine looking at it. I use this font with a different, more correct glyph in place of the poorly designed one, and it's basically perfect now. Nobody's going to force you or Intel to change anything, but you can't pretend that this isn't an issue.

[jnfingerle]

you can't pretend

@tkircher I'm sorry to hear about your medical problems, and it's great to hear that you solved those. But you implying that I didn't argue in good faith won't help the likelihood of me agreeing with you. So just to state the obvious: The point of so-called "correctness" has already been discussed, and I did not pretend anything.

[georgalis]

    \|/ ____ \|/
    "@'/ .. \`@"
    /_| \__/ |_\
       \__U_/

the brace freeked me out at first
then I reslized what it reminded me of
now I brace all the time...}@{

[nextgenthemes]

I get the intention, but it's way overdone. Just a little bit more round and not THAT sharp.

[yvvt0379]

The curly braces is easy enough to tell apart from square & round brackets, which is good. However, they are too distractive, as if they are screaming “Hey look at me! I'm curly braces, not square brackets or round brackets!”

[jnfingerle]

I still don't get why people who don't like this font cannot just go on and use another one. This discussion clearly shows that there are a number of people who like the curlies just as they are. If this font isn't for you, fine, don't use it.

[yvvt0379]

But it's unwise to give up a font just because one disadvantage. We are making suggestions, not criticizing this font -- Otherwise issues should not exist

[tkircher]

I still don't get why people who don't like this font cannot just go on and use another one. This discussion clearly shows that there are a number of people who like the curlies just as they are. If this font isn't for you, fine, don't use it.

The purpose of the project, according to its own statement, is to provide a "font family that’s built with clarity, legibility, and the needs of developers in mind." In fact this one specific pair of glyphs ruins all of that for many of us. It is hard to look at, distracting, and comically unprofessional. That really isn't just an opinion. And suggesting that we should just get off your lawn doesn't acknowledge that a company as large as Intel has responsibilities to the community.

[tkuraku]

I think that it being unprofessional etc absolutely is an opinion. I think {} looks great as is and is something I enjoy about the font.

[yvvt0379]

Since opinions are so different, let OpenType features solve this problem. Thus, both sides could be satisfied.

[trinhnhatnam]

Please don't change it. Fonts with "normal looking" curly braces are abundant.

This font is for "low-vision developer audience". Please don't deviate from that mission. If folks don't like it, then they are probably not the target audience. They have plenty to choose from.

I don't have low-vision yet, but am loving this font. My previous favorite is Source Code Pro, but the latest versions don't have hinting, so they don't display well on Windows machines.