Two Slice, a font that's only 2px tall

Micro-font subculture & use cases

• Commenters note an existing niche around fonts smaller than 8×8, especially for low‑resolution LED matrices, Arduino/embedded displays, musical pad controllers, and old consoles/computers.
• Some feel such extremes aren’t needed for modern high‑DPI screens, but others emphasize the constraint is often the physical device (LED grids, tiny OLEDs), not pixel density.
• People recall ZX Spectrum, C64, and similar systems using ultra‑narrow bitmap fonts to squeeze more text on screen.

Legibility, cognition, and context

• Many can read the example text “with effort,” describing it as closer to deciphering than normal reading. Others find it essentially unreadable.
• Several argue readability relies heavily on English redundancy and context; random strings or mixed case quickly break the illusion.
• There’s discussion that we recognize overall word shapes and sequences of “blobs” more than precise letters, akin to reading bad handwriting or text at an oblique angle.
• A few wonder whether one‑pixel or one‑color‑per‑letter encodings could be learned with training.

Design tradeoffs & specific glyph issues

• Multiple letters share or nearly share shapes (e.g., b/l/h; xyv; some caps vs lowercase), which hurts usability.
• Specific criticism targets:
  • Capital H looking like “ii/II”.
  • V, X, Y being identical.
  • Lowercase s and z appearing swapped in behavior vs expectation.
  • “c” and “z” (and some words like “can”) looking cropped or ambiguous.
• Punctuation in this size is described as unintentionally funny/chaotic.

Comparisons to other tiny fonts and encodings

• Links to 3×4, 3×5, and other microfonts suggest that 3×5 or 4×5 (with padding) are about the smallest that remain comfortably readable.
• Some mention color/subpixel “millitext” fonts and suggest greyscale or RGB subpixels could further shrink usable type.
• A playful side thread debates whether Morse code or barcodes count as “fonts” versus encodings, and whether you could cram text into single pixels via ligatures and animation.

Practical constraints & multilingual limits

• Whitespace/padding between glyphs is seen as critical; in practice the font behaves more like 3×4 or 4×4 including spacing.
• For real projects, commenters recommend slightly larger designs (e.g., 4×5 including padding) on tiny OLEDs as a sweet spot.
• For Chinese and Japanese, people cite 5×7–8×8 as rough lower bounds; 2‑pixel heights are viewed as clearly insufficient beyond very constrained Latin use.

Overall reaction

• The project is widely praised as a clever, joyful hack and an impressive proof‑of‑concept, while most agree it’s a curiosity with very limited practical readability.