The perfect font for creating any and all of your letter formation and letter practicing materials when THREE LINES are needed. Type in your students names or your spelling words or whatever your heart desires with this fun three line letter formation and tracing font!
OTF format (OpenType) and TrueType format included. You will need to know which one is better and how to install fonts on your specific computer. If you don't, please ask someone familiar with your specific computer as I am unable troubleshoot for every one on installing fonts. Thank you!
One Line Alphabet Font Download
Download 🔥 https://bytlly.com/2yGcbm 🔥
You may use the fonts you purchase in my store for any personal project and some commercial projects - as described in the FULL TERMS OF USE. If commercial projects credit/attribution is REQUIRED along with the provided logo. You can use them online in blogs as well with credit/attribution and logo.
You may NOT use the font to create products that are ONLY the font as the main element, they must be used in a worksheet or activity. (For example, a task card with ONLY the font is not allowed. It must be part of a larger design.)
If you go to your My Purchases page, beside each purchase you will see a Provide Feedback button. Simply click it and give a quick rating and leave a short comment for the product. For every time you give feedback, TpT gives you feedback credits that you use to lower the cost of your future purchases! Win win!
When I zoom in to the PDF the logo looks very good, but when I zoom out to the hole page view the problems begin. Otherwise the logo looks normal but all the letter Ls look bolded altought they are not.
I know this is an old thread, but for future people looking for this answer - it doesn't print this way for me, it just shows lower case 'l' super bold and more like a line (like the 'l' loses its shape).
This may be due to how you have your viewer configured: Go into Acrobat's Preferences, then select the "Page Display" category and change the settings within the "Rendering" group of settings. Does any of these settings - when toggled - change how the "L" is being displayed?
This is a great solution for me to turn it off on my computer. Now, when exporting PDFs for others, how do we make it so THEY do not A) see the thickened lines and B) THEY do not need to turn off "enhance thin lines" in order for the PDF to look as it should on their screen?
Absolutely not! That would require a change to the PDF specification which is not under Adobe's control. PDF is an ISO standard. The assumption for PDF is that you properly embed fonts such this problem doesn't occur. See previous responses in this thread!
I often have very limited space when creating reports and dashboards for users. I usually use Arial, or Arial Narrow, but UI isn't my area of expertise, so I want to know, how do you determine an optimal font for fitting the most readable text in the smallest space?
I did a rudimentary by creating a program that iterated through all of the available fonts I had installed on my Windows box at the time and printed a line containing each printable ascii character on to the screen in each of these font's. I repeated the test as well with different font sizes.
The results as I recall them were that Segoe UI and Tahoma were the best with respect to space utilization and readability for UI purposes at 10pt and 9pt sizes. In the short term we settled on Tahoma since Segoe UI isn't freely available for operating systems below Windows Vista. If you don't need to support Windows XP or older an Windows OS or other a non Windows OS then I would definitely go with Segoe UI otherwise I would go with Tahoma if it's available and if all else fails try Verdana. See this list for a lineup of available Windows fonts as well as information about the best of use of each.
Keep in mind as well that starting with Windows Vista I believe, Microsoft now recommends using a 9pt font instead of a 10pt font for UI elements since the Sego UI font displays much clearer than other fonts at low resolutions especially on flat panel displays.
Depending on what platform you are developing for, you may also want to look at modifying font metrics if possible. In .NET with WPF I recall there being quite a bit of ways to modify how the text is rendered to allow for condensing the space between characters and to make the individual characters more narrow. Using this type of technique you can stick with whatever font you like and just tweak it's rendering to get the results you need.
With regard to your specific example graph that you provided: for this particular graph I would recommend pivoting it so the text most likely to be read is horizontal for more natural reading. I would also place the number so that it is inside the each bar of the bar graph when it will fit with a color that stands out against whatever background color is there thus increasing the space for other things such as the labels. Laying out the bar graph as rows would make it easier to read and also to print on multiple pages if necessary. If a row layout is not possible then creating a separate key for each item in the graph would probably be reasonable and that way each bar could be place closer together as well to save space. The key would allow each bar to be labeled such as A, B, C... or 01, 02, 03... for example and the key (layed out in rows somewhere else) would give more detailed information about each.
Remember, a chart or diagram is mainly useful for getting quick visual information. If it becomes too much of a burden to the user/reader your probably best off simplifying it, consolidating some of the details of the chart, or just provide more raw data in a more tabular form.
Update: I've added another comparison below which shows a more complete listing of common characters including capital and lower case letters in each of the previously mentioned fonts with the addition of Verdana and MS Sans Serif (default UI font in Windows prior to Windows 2000). Unfortunately and in response to bobsoap's recommendation for using Verdana, it is pretty clear that Verdana is about the worst compared to the other fonts at 9pt although keep in mind that this may not hold true for other point sizes. Also size isn't necessarily always the most important detail, sometimes it's more important that a font is readable at small sizes than whether it is more compact relative to another font.
Generally, there's an "other way". The answers to this question are all great, but honestly, you should look at all the different option. Squeezing as much text in as little space as possible always means you've botched a previous design choice.
There are so many options, make sure you use the right one. Squeezing as much information into a single small area as possible is always the wrong way to go. Information needs space to breathe, to be readable, to be scannable and recognizable.
Yes, this generally means using way more space. But that's not a bad thing. It will take less effort for the person who consumes the data to quickly scan a couple of pages filled with well-structured information, than to figure out what that one bar means on that one-page-report. Think of the old board member, pocketing his reading glasses while passing the paper to the person next to him: "I can't read this - what does it say?"
There are assumptions in this question, the biggest one being that the "correct solution" to this UX issue is small text. But it's not. Small text becomes unreadable, an issue aggravated by tablets and other mobile devices. What if your user has bad eyesight? What if it's shown on an older, lower resolution monitor? What if there's glare from the sun or a light? So many reasons why small text can be unreadable.
Sometimes a smaller font is a good way out of a tight spot. In this particular case, at least for the part of the problem shown, there is a better solution which is both clearer, and takes half the space, like so:
Many fonts have been explicitly designed for use on computer screens (generally referred to as screen fonts). Matthew Carter's set of typefaces; Verdana, Tahoma, Georgia et al are great examples; they were designed from the outset with the pixel grid in mind. That makes them inherently good for use at smaller sizes (but generally makes them look a bit awkward in print).
In general, at small point sizes (remembering point sizes refer to height), I would recommend Verdana because it has a very high x-height which provides wide open counters. That will make it wider than some other fonts, which isn't what you're looking for (based on your examples).
Fonts like Segoe UI, Tahoma and MS Sans Serif are all designed as versatile screen fonts (being the default typefaces for Windows Vista/7, Windows XP and earlier versions of Windows respectively), so they're good all-around choices (with Segoe UI being the only one designed with sub-pixel hinting in mind and being the most modern choice).
There are two factors that should also be considered when selecting a font; if you're running the type vertically the sub-pixel antialiasing is naturally different, and generally the pixel hinting starts looking a bit worse (since type designers aren't likely to have tested their faces vertically). If you're running the fonts diagonally or otherwise not on the pixel grid, pixel hinting all gets thrown out the window.
It's important to specify what dimension you're trying to optimize. Are you looking to reduce size horizontally (shorter lines) or also vertically? If you are looking to optimize horizontal width, you should be looking for a condensed typeface. Arial Narrow and Helvetica Condensed are two obvious options, but I don't find them very readable and they come off as looking cheap. 152ee80cbc