<story><title>Uniwidth Typefaces for Interface Design</title><url>https://uxdesign.cc/uniwidth-typefaces-for-interface-design-b6e8078dc0f7</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>phkahler</author><text>&amp;gt;&amp;gt; The solution to this problem: “uniwidth” typefaces, sometimes also called “equal-width”, “duplexed” or “multiplexed” typefaces. And no, I am not talking about monospaced fonts here.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m not into web design but I think the core problem here is lack of accepted terminology and even awareness that this type of font is a thing.&lt;p&gt;The article certainly brings awareness to something I didn&amp;#x27;t know is a thing but seems very useful.&lt;p&gt;My mind wants to say &amp;quot;weight invariant&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;style invariant&amp;quot; but those suggest the thing doesnt look any different rather than just the size not changing with other characteristics.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s probably obvious that I don&amp;#x27;t like &amp;quot;uniwidth&amp;quot;, but at the moment I can&amp;#x27;t think of anything better that isn&amp;#x27;t super wordy, like &amp;quot;font with style invariant width&amp;quot;.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>CharlesW</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;I&amp;#x27;m not into web design but I think the core problem here is lack of accepted terminology and even awareness that this type of font is a thing.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;It seems useful to name the property where character widths are consistent along their weight axis, but another case in point to support the sibling comment: I see only one other significant use of &amp;quot;uniwidth&amp;quot;[1], from 2015.&lt;p&gt;I also find &amp;quot;uniwidth&amp;quot; a poor and confusing name for this property, and &amp;quot;duplexed&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;multiplexed&amp;quot; even worse.&lt;p&gt;If I had to suggest a better alternative, I think something like &amp;quot;width-invariant&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;width-invariant proportional&amp;quot; would be clearer.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.fontshop.com&amp;#x2F;people&amp;#x2F;david-sudweeks&amp;#x2F;fontlists&amp;#x2F;uniwidth-typefaces&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.fontshop.com&amp;#x2F;people&amp;#x2F;david-sudweeks&amp;#x2F;fontlists&amp;#x2F;uni...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Uniwidth Typefaces for Interface Design</title><url>https://uxdesign.cc/uniwidth-typefaces-for-interface-design-b6e8078dc0f7</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>phkahler</author><text>&amp;gt;&amp;gt; The solution to this problem: “uniwidth” typefaces, sometimes also called “equal-width”, “duplexed” or “multiplexed” typefaces. And no, I am not talking about monospaced fonts here.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m not into web design but I think the core problem here is lack of accepted terminology and even awareness that this type of font is a thing.&lt;p&gt;The article certainly brings awareness to something I didn&amp;#x27;t know is a thing but seems very useful.&lt;p&gt;My mind wants to say &amp;quot;weight invariant&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;style invariant&amp;quot; but those suggest the thing doesnt look any different rather than just the size not changing with other characteristics.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s probably obvious that I don&amp;#x27;t like &amp;quot;uniwidth&amp;quot;, but at the moment I can&amp;#x27;t think of anything better that isn&amp;#x27;t super wordy, like &amp;quot;font with style invariant width&amp;quot;.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>joshxyz</author><text>Yep I initially thought &amp;quot;uniwidth&amp;quot; is synonymous with &amp;quot;monospaced&amp;quot; fonts.&lt;p&gt;But these uniwidth fonts can have Sans and Mono variants like Recursive[0], so methinks these could&amp;#x27;ve been just called what they are: &amp;quot;no-reflow&amp;quot; fonts? lol&lt;p&gt;[0] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.recursive.design&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.recursive.design&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>