> Since monospace fonts are fixed width, wouldn't swapping out 1 monospace font for another monospace font (that's more readable) be seamless?
Not sure I exactly understand this suggestion - but if I do, wouldn't it require a different monospace font for each possible configuration of the window size?
The "normal" window size was set such that each character cell was 9x19 pixels; this makes the window 720x475 (ignoring window borders added by the OS). If the user resizes it to, e.g. 721x475, there is no specific font that can be added to substitute; instead that extra vertical line needs to be inserted somewhere.
What I mean is, there's plenty of monospace fonts that can fit within a 9x19 pixel grid.
And since the 9x19 size doesn't change, shouldn't you be able to substitute any 9x19 monospace font with another equally sized.
(The 9x19 grid doesn't change, which mean the UI wouldn't change, but you could use a monospace font that has more readable letter forms than what's currently in use)
Yes, we could. However we specially commissioned this font from Monotype (creator of many famous fonts). It's called Bloomberg Fixed Unicode (you can search around for samples/copies which I won't vouch for here).
I also won't comment on the aesthetics of this font, but the choice is intentional and part of the branding of the Terminal product.
Not sure I exactly understand this suggestion - but if I do, wouldn't it require a different monospace font for each possible configuration of the window size?
The "normal" window size was set such that each character cell was 9x19 pixels; this makes the window 720x475 (ignoring window borders added by the OS). If the user resizes it to, e.g. 721x475, there is no specific font that can be added to substitute; instead that extra vertical line needs to be inserted somewhere.