search

notofonts / noto-cjk

Noto CJK fonts
http://www.google.com/get/noto/help/cjk
2.94k stars 215 forks source link

Number 0 is not easily distinguishable with Uppercase alphabet O with monospaced CJK fonts #244

Closed jyhpsycho closed 1 year ago

jyhpsycho commented 1 year ago

Font

All fonts in Sans/Mono/ (maybe, I just tested jp and kr)

Where the font came from, and when

Distributed at Here

Site: https://github.com/notofonts/noto-cjk/tree/main/Sans/Mono Date: 2023-05-14

openSUSE Font info page (For site reference only, I just installed it using zypper)

Site: https://fontinfo.opensuse.org/families/NotoSansMonoCJKKR.html (for Korean) Site: https://fontinfo.opensuse.org/families/NotoSansMonoCJKJP.html (for Japanese) Date: 2023-05-14

Font Version

65798(i)(s) : openSUSE package (using fc-query) 131334(i)(s) : Distributed at here (using fc-query)

OS name and version

openSUSE Leap 15.4 (which I used, it does not depend on OS type and version)

Application name and version

N/A (It does not depend on application)

Issue

  1. Steps to reproduce

    Render number 0 and uppercase O using monospace CJK fonts (I used xfce4-settings for screenshot below).

  2. Observed results

    It seems like same character.

  3. Expected results

    It should be distinguishable easily.

  4. Additional information

    Noto Sans Mono has same issue which is now fixed (See https://github.com/notofonts/latin-greek-cyrillic/issues/188)

Character data

U+0030 (Number 0) U+004F (Uppercase alphabet O)

Screenshot

Noto Sans Mono CJK KR Regular Screenshot_2023-05-14_23-22-05 Noto Sans Mono Regular Screenshot_2023-05-14_23-31-31

punchcutter commented 1 year ago

The version of Source Han Sans/Noto CJK that has this is https://github.com/adobe-fonts/source-han-mono.

jyhpsycho commented 1 year ago

@punchcutter Should I report it to there?

punchcutter commented 1 year ago

No, I mean you can use Source Han Sans Mono since it has the glyphs you want and those aren't going to be changed in the current Source Han Sans/Noto right now. Also see https://github.com/notofonts/noto-cjk/issues/223

jyhpsycho commented 1 year ago

(https://github.com/notofonts/noto-cjk/issues/244#issuecomment-1553855728) Ah, Thanks for the information. I will use it until fix this issue.

Hmm, it just reported in many times before... I think it's better to fix the glyph anyway, even there's some historical reason commented on https://github.com/notofonts/noto-cjk/issues/73#issuecomment-242064250, because the purpose of Noto font is "Typographically correct global communication" (from https://fonts.google.com/noto), not "Render ancient documents as-is".

Even there's some alternative like Source Han Mono, it's different case until it managed like separate font(I know that it's same though). Just there's no issue with Source Han Mono, but Noto Sans Mono has the issue. Rather, it should be fixed if it's true that these fonts are same thing.

Is there any reason(policy) to not fix this issue? I think what they said before(https://github.com/notofonts/noto-cjk/issues/223 and so on) are not convincing. For example, I think https://github.com/adobe-fonts/source-han-sans/issues/175#issuecomment-297487775 is wrong way to handle this issue.

punchcutter commented 1 year ago

There's nothing to "fix" here. It's a stylistic choice and isn't going to change right now.