Improvements that would make the reduce the cognitive demands of this font for novice readers and those with special needs:

• Lexend bd and pq are mirror images of each other. These letters are easily confused by children learning to read, commonly reversed by dyslexics, and would really benefit from individual distinctive shapes, including a flick on the tail of the q to reflect the taught letter formation.
• It is important that capital i, lowercase L and number 1 are easy distinguishable and clearly identifiable when standing alone. Lexend is nearly there but a flick on the tail of the lowercase L would ensure that a lowercase L appearing alone would never be mistaken for a number 1.
• The UK letter formation for t and y has a curled tail. Taught number formation for 3 is more rounded than in Lexend, the 4 is open so it cannot be mistaken for a 9 when written and the 9 is a simpler circle and straight line format.

Please see the image for example improvements

Hello!

This is an automatically-generated report about possible interpolation problems in LexendDeca[wght].ttf, as found in the Google Fonts catalog.

To download a PDF version of this report with helpful visuals of the problems, click here; Or to view it on the GitHub website, click here.

The report follows:

Glyph colonmonetary was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=900.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2] in '', [1, 0, 2] in 'wght=900.0'
Glyph plus was not compatible:
  Masters: 'wght=199.9939', 'wght=100.0':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in 'wght=199.9939', 1 in 'wght=100.0'; reversed: False
Glyph uni20AD was not compatible:
  Masters: 'wght=199.9939', 'wght=100.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4] in 'wght=199.9939', [0, 2, 1, 3, 4] in 'wght=100.0'
Glyph uni20B1 was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [1, 0, 2, 3] in 'wght=199.9939'
  Masters: '', 'wght=900.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [1, 0, 2, 3] in 'wght=900.0'

This report was generated using the fonttools varLib.interpolatable tool. We understand that sometimes the tool generates false-positives. Particularly for more complicated font designs. If you did not find this report useful, please accept our apologies and ignore / close it.

To give feedback about this report, please file an issue or open a discussion at fonttools.

(This issus is a copy of ThomasJockin/readexpro#61)

I like this typeface. I think it could be better if there's an variant for 1, 3, 4, 7.

• 1 without bottom serif
• 3 with arched top
• 4 with semi-open contour
• 7 with initial serif

Just like DIN 1451:

Thanks!!

This screenshot was taken in the Lexend[wght].ttf file, but it also happens in the other ones.

It seems more appropriate to have differentiating stroke for zero to avoid confusion with the letter O.

Other typefaces which are also focused on legibility such as Atkinson Hyperlegible and more recently, Inclusive Sans, has a slash and a dot, respectively, for their zeroes.

Hey :)

Great font! I use it for many projects.

However the font doesn't really work well when using it with -webkit-text-stroke.

Any plans on improving this? Thanks!

Hello!

This is an automatically-generated report about possible interpolation problems in LexendGiga[wght].ttf, as found in the Google Fonts catalog.

To download a PDF version of this report with helpful visuals of the problems, click here; Or to view it on the GitHub website, click here.

The report follows:

Glyph colonmonetary was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=900.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2] in '', [1, 0, 2] in 'wght=900.0'
Glyph numbersign was not compatible:
  Masters: 'wght=199.9939', 'wght=100.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in 'wght=199.9939', [0, 2, 1, 3] in 'wght=100.0'
Glyph plus was not compatible:
  Masters: 'wght=199.9939', 'wght=100.0':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in 'wght=199.9939', 1 in 'wght=100.0'; reversed: False
Glyph product was not compatible:
  Masters: 'wght=199.9939', 'wght=100.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2] in 'wght=199.9939', [2, 1, 0] in 'wght=100.0'
Glyph uni20AD was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in '', 1 in 'wght=199.9939'; reversed: True
  Masters: 'wght=199.9939', 'wght=100.0':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in 'wght=199.9939', 1 in 'wght=100.0'; reversed: True
Glyph uni20B1 was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [1, 0, 2, 3] in 'wght=199.9939'
  Masters: '', 'wght=900.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [1, 0, 2, 3] in 'wght=900.0'

This report was generated using the fonttools varLib.interpolatable tool. We understand that sometimes the tool generates false-positives. Particularly for more complicated font designs. If you did not find this report useful, please accept our apologies and ignore / close it.

To give feedback about this report, please file an issue or open a discussion at fonttools.

Hi,
In West Africa here we are always looking for some more interesting fonts usable in the local languages. I maintain a small list of fonts that are suitable for the Mande language group.

https://coastsystems.net/blog/en/blog/2020-08-26-fontlist/

Your font is partly there but missing a couple of glyphs. What we need are:

You already have 2 out of 4!!

https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Lexend?preview.text=M%C9%94g%C9%94k%C9%94r%C9%94w%20ka%C9%B2i%20ka%20k%C9%9B%20ni%20%C5%8Bania%20%C9%B2uman%20ye&preview.text_type=custom#standard-styles

If one day we could get lexend it would benefit some 30 million people that have only about 40 fonts at the present time.

Thanks!

Based on the following comments:

And the following lines from the build script:

Both Lexend and Lexend Deca have a hyper-expansion factor (HEXP) of zero. Is Lexend an alias for Lexend Deca?

Is there an italic variant of this font? Is one coming? This blog post at design.google says "Lexend Italic will be available Spring 2022 from Octavio Pardo." FYI @octaviopardo

See also ThomasJockin/readexpro#21.

Hello!

This is an automatically-generated report about possible interpolation problems in LexendMega[wght].ttf, as found in the Google Fonts catalog.

To download a PDF version of this report with helpful visuals of the problems, click here; Or to view it on the GitHub website, click here.

The report follows:

Glyph colonmonetary was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=900.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2] in '', [1, 0, 2] in 'wght=900.0'
Glyph numbersign was not compatible:
  Masters: 'wght=199.9939', 'wght=100.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in 'wght=199.9939', [0, 2, 1, 3] in 'wght=100.0'
Glyph product was not compatible:
  Masters: 'wght=199.9939', 'wght=100.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2] in 'wght=199.9939', [2, 1, 0] in 'wght=100.0'
Glyph uni20AD was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in '', 1 in 'wght=199.9939'; reversed: True
  Masters: 'wght=199.9939', 'wght=100.0':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in 'wght=199.9939', 1 in 'wght=100.0'; reversed: True
Glyph uni20B1 was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [1, 0, 2, 3] in 'wght=199.9939'
  Masters: '', 'wght=900.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [1, 0, 2, 3] in 'wght=900.0'

This report was generated using the fonttools varLib.interpolatable tool. We understand that sometimes the tool generates false-positives. Particularly for more complicated font designs. If you did not find this report useful, please accept our apologies and ignore / close it.

To give feedback about this report, please file an issue or open a discussion at fonttools.

Would it be possible to publish the WOFF2 versions for the other variations? Particularly interested in the Lexend Deca version.

I tried to create them myself but running into issues getting gftools to run on my mac.

A user reported that the ft pair is too tightly spaced in the wght-max, and indeed ff and tt are looser.

Its more evenly spaced in Regular

@dberlow do you think the spacing should change? Perhaps a positive kerning pair?

A user said,

the latin doesn’t interpolate well. The accents and punctuation have an inconsistent thickness compare to the letters, spacing of light is super tight etc.

The "A" letter of Lexend font is displayed differently on the web on all iMacs used by me and my client for verification.

Everything is ok on iPad and iPhone and all other browser and OS combinations tested so far.

Probable cause: The curve directions of the two bestant parts are not the same.

Could you please fix and update the font?

Thanks for your time and help in advance!

BTW, the font stored locally on the server is included in CSS as follows:
@font-face { font-family: "Lexend"; font-style: normal; font-weight: 500; font-display: swap; src: url("../fonts/lexend/lexend-v14-latin-500.eot"); src: local("Lexend"), url("../fonts/lexend/lexend-v14-latin-500.eot?#iefix") format("embedded-opentype"), url("../fonts/lexend/lexend-v14-latin-500.woff") format("woff"), url("../fonts/lexend/lexend-v14-latin-500.ttf") format("truetype"), url("../fonts/lexend/lexend-v14-latin-500.svg#Lexend") format("svg"); }

Hello!

This is an automatically-generated report about possible interpolation problems in LexendPeta[wght].ttf, as found in the Google Fonts catalog.

To download a PDF version of this report with helpful visuals of the problems, click here; Or to view it on the GitHub website, click here.

The report follows:

Glyph colonmonetary was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=900.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2] in '', [1, 0, 2] in 'wght=900.0'
Glyph numbersign was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [0, 2, 1, 3] in 'wght=199.9939'
Glyph product was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2] in '', [2, 1, 0] in 'wght=199.9939'
Glyph uni20AD was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in '', 1 in 'wght=199.9939'; reversed: True
  Masters: 'wght=199.9939', 'wght=100.0':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in 'wght=199.9939', 1 in 'wght=100.0'; reversed: True
Glyph uni20B1 was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [1, 0, 2, 3] in 'wght=199.9939'
  Masters: '', 'wght=900.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [1, 0, 2, 3] in 'wght=900.0'

This report was generated using the fonttools varLib.interpolatable tool. We understand that sometimes the tool generates false-positives. Particularly for more complicated font designs. If you did not find this report useful, please accept our apologies and ignore / close it.

To give feedback about this report, please file an issue or open a discussion at fonttools.

I wanted to use this font while prgramming, but using this font in XFCE Terminal or in Windows Terminal will look super weird.

Hello!

This is an automatically-generated report about possible interpolation problems in LexendZetta[wght].ttf, as found in the Google Fonts catalog.

To download a PDF version of this report with helpful visuals of the problems, click here; Or to view it on the GitHub website, click here.

The report follows:

Glyph colonmonetary was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=900.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2] in '', [1, 0, 2] in 'wght=900.0'
Glyph numbersign was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [0, 2, 1, 3] in 'wght=199.9939'
Glyph product was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2] in '', [2, 1, 0] in 'wght=199.9939'
Glyph uni20AD was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in '', 1 in 'wght=199.9939'; reversed: True
    Contour 2 start point differs: 0 in '', 3 in 'wght=199.9939'; reversed: True
  Masters: 'wght=199.9939', 'wght=100.0':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in 'wght=199.9939', 1 in 'wght=100.0'; reversed: True
    Contour 2 start point differs: 0 in 'wght=199.9939', 3 in 'wght=100.0'; reversed: True
Glyph uni20B1 was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [1, 0, 2, 3] in 'wght=199.9939'
  Masters: '', 'wght=900.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [1, 0, 2, 3] in 'wght=900.0'

This report was generated using the fonttools varLib.interpolatable tool. We understand that sometimes the tool generates false-positives. Particularly for more complicated font designs. If you did not find this report useful, please accept our apologies and ignore / close it.

To give feedback about this report, please file an issue or open a discussion at fonttools.

Hello!

This is an automatically-generated report about possible interpolation problems in Lexend[wght].ttf, as found in the Google Fonts catalog.

To download a PDF version of this report with helpful visuals of the problems, click here; Or to view it on the GitHub website, click here.

The report follows:

Glyph colonmonetary was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=900.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2] in '', [1, 0, 2] in 'wght=900.0'
Glyph plus was not compatible:
  Masters: 'wght=199.9939', 'wght=100.0':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in 'wght=199.9939', 1 in 'wght=100.0'; reversed: False
Glyph uni20AD was not compatible:
  Masters: 'wght=199.9939', 'wght=100.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4] in 'wght=199.9939', [0, 2, 1, 3, 4] in 'wght=100.0'
Glyph uni20B1 was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [1, 0, 2, 3] in 'wght=199.9939'
  Masters: '', 'wght=900.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [1, 0, 2, 3] in 'wght=900.0'

This report was generated using the fonttools varLib.interpolatable tool. We understand that sometimes the tool generates false-positives. Particularly for more complicated font designs. If you did not find this report useful, please accept our apologies and ignore / close it.

To give feedback about this report, please file an issue or open a discussion at fonttools.

Hello!

This is an automatically-generated report about possible interpolation problems in LexendExa[wght].ttf, as found in the Google Fonts catalog.

To download a PDF version of this report with helpful visuals of the problems, click here; Or to view it on the GitHub website, click here.

The report follows:

Glyph colonmonetary was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=900.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2] in '', [1, 0, 2] in 'wght=900.0'
Glyph plus was not compatible:
  Masters: 'wght=199.9939', 'wght=100.0':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in 'wght=199.9939', 1 in 'wght=100.0'; reversed: False
Glyph uni20AD was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in '', 1 in 'wght=199.9939'; reversed: True
  Masters: 'wght=199.9939', 'wght=100.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4] in 'wght=199.9939', [0, 2, 1, 3, 4] in 'wght=100.0'
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in 'wght=199.9939', 1 in 'wght=100.0'; reversed: True
Glyph uni20B1 was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [1, 0, 2, 3] in 'wght=199.9939'
  Masters: '', 'wght=900.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [1, 0, 2, 3] in 'wght=900.0'

This report was generated using the fonttools varLib.interpolatable tool. We understand that sometimes the tool generates false-positives. Particularly for more complicated font designs. If you did not find this report useful, please accept our apologies and ignore / close it.

To give feedback about this report, please file an issue or open a discussion at fonttools.

Hello!

This is an automatically-generated report about possible interpolation problems in LexendTera[wght].ttf, as found in the Google Fonts catalog.

To download a PDF version of this report with helpful visuals of the problems, click here; Or to view it on the GitHub website, click here.

The report follows:

Glyph colonmonetary was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=900.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2] in '', [1, 0, 2] in 'wght=900.0'
Glyph numbersign was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [0, 2, 1, 3] in 'wght=199.9939'
Glyph product was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2] in '', [2, 1, 0] in 'wght=199.9939'
Glyph uni20AD was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in '', 1 in 'wght=199.9939'; reversed: True
  Masters: 'wght=199.9939', 'wght=100.0':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in 'wght=199.9939', 1 in 'wght=100.0'; reversed: True
Glyph uni20B1 was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=199.9939':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [1, 0, 2, 3] in 'wght=199.9939'
  Masters: '', 'wght=900.0':
    Contour order differs: [0, 1, 2, 3] in '', [1, 0, 2, 3] in 'wght=900.0'

This report was generated using the fonttools varLib.interpolatable tool. We understand that sometimes the tool generates false-positives. Particularly for more complicated font designs. If you did not find this report useful, please accept our apologies and ignore / close it.

To give feedback about this report, please file an issue or open a discussion at fonttools.