This is really quite genius. It uses ligatures (normally used to replace multiple letters by a single, nicer glyph, such as fi fl ae etc.) to replace "55+24+31" with a chart. You could theoretically use this on the web, and people who use screen readers or text-based browsers can still see the data. Cool!
Why do people still insist on doing this? I prefer to remap all fonts to two (a serif and a sans) that are much easier for me to read. When people use these silly font+glyph combos I never use their software. The one rare exception is GitHub. I still wish people would just use SVG.<p>Edit: Why was this down-voted? Is this not a legitimate concern? It is worth mentioning that I remap my fonts to help my dyslexic brain keep track of the baseline.<p>Edit2: It is also worth noting that this font does degrade quite gracefully and my problem lies more with the paradigm than this particular font.
I love this set--we've been using them at Loudpixel for quite some time (even before they were bought by FontFont). I use them primarily in Illustrator for our custom research reports and publications: <a href="http://loudpixel.com/sugarfree/" rel="nofollow">http://loudpixel.com/sugarfree/</a>
What is the license like? It looked like per-user. Does this mean they do not wish it to be embedded on a web page? Can web browsers parse these OTF ligatures? Anybody have any experience here?
This is a really cute hack.<p>That said, the pricing is absurd. There are numerous data analysis and graphing programs that produce better looking, more customizable charts and graphs with a simpler UI, most of which cost significantly less than $129 despite being much more powerful.
I thought this was really cool, until I saw that it cost $129.... Realistically, who would buy this? I'm assuming that because it is proprietary, it can not be used on the Internet, and if you don't have to cater to arbitrary OSes, why not use grh software?
Is there any particular reason the link is HTTPS, especially considering that the page contains no sensitive content, and a warning about non-SSL content when it's loaded?
What an interesting idea. Surely this must take advantage of some in-font scripting… if I remember correctly there is some type of ECMAScript variant inside OpenType.