Checking legibility of glyph

Mithil Mogare

Hello, Good afternoon.

I'm working on a mono typeface. I'd like your assistance in determining the legibility of the glyph. I've attached an image of one of the glyphs.

Are you all able to identify this glyph?

What are some of the best variants you've come across in your type journey? Can you think of any typefaces that have a distinctive design for this glyph?

How can I make this glyph more legible?

P.S. After some time, I will unveil this glyph.

Your input would be really helpful to me.

Mark Simonson

At? I think I've seen this solution before for fixed width faces.

Ray Larabie

That appears to be @. I frequently employ the over-the-top approach. Because it is less dense, the simpler design performs well in heavy weights. I believe you can stretch the legibility of the @ quite far. In a typical font, there are no gyphs comparable, and given the setting, it would be difficult to mistake it for something else. It's an @ if it resembles a lowercase a and has a curl. Here are a few odd ones I've come up with throughout the years. Some of them don’t appear to be @ when taken out of context. When they’re combined with numerals, in an email address, or in front of a user name, they're unmistakably @.

Thomas Phinney

I guessed it was an @ sign. But it certainly did not feel intuitive. Mind you, that was in isolation; agree with Ray that context is a big clue in normal use, when @ usually appears in places one expects it.

But even in isolation, I think it is a more recognizable @ than many of Ray’s display face @ signs—as one would expect. A lot depends on the purpose of the typeface and the priority of legibility.

You could also borrow the general spirit of Ray’s solutions, while keeping the distinctive “a” shape in the middle, and have the loop sprout from the top rather than the bottom. Then you can wrap it around three sides instead of two, while still having only three vertical elements. (I suspect this might be just a slight advantage at best; I find the particular loop construction at the lower right is a big part of what usually distinguishes the @.)

Nick Shinn

How can one assess the merit of a glyph in isolation from the text in which it will appear?

In my opinion, the lines to the left and right of the letter “a” that occupies the centre of @ are very important, because they provide boundaries which discourage the reader from assuming that the “a” of @ is the middle part of a word that comprises text on either side of it. A swirly shape does the job almost as well, with no discernible “a”:


In fact, the more busy that the @ looks, the better to distinguish it, as symbol not letter, from the adjacent words—so it is a mistake to trim it.

Ray Larabie

I don't know where the over-the-top @ originated but here are some examples used on IBM Selectric typewriters.

luc.devroye.org/fonts-44934.html

Complex characters appear to have lighter strokes on typewriters. When struck through layers of carbon paper, the complete @ form probably looked like a blob or turned invisible, thus simpler forms would have added some clarity.

Russell McGorman

Legibility is subject to context. Ok... It looks like, or maybe just sort of looks like an "at" sign by itself but in actual use, in most cases, there's nothing else it can be.

Mithil Mogare

Yes, It was @ or at glyph.
Thank you so much for your time!