Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Font Uses Holes To Cut Ink Use

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the more-you-take-away dept.

Earth 540

An anonymous reader writes "A Dutch company has taken an open source Sans Serif font and added holes to it to try and save on printer ink costs. The Ecofont is claimed to save up to 20 percent of ink costs, but it allegedly took the firm a while to perfect the ratio of the maximum number of holes possible without sacrificing readability."

cancel ×

540 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What a fucking stupid idea! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151267)

But, what do you expect from the Dutch?

Re:What a fucking stupid idea! (4, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151335)

Tell you what, when you can come up with a better way to save 20% of the ink used on a printed document, then you can say it's stupid. Until then, I think it's a cleverly simple idea.

Re:What a fucking stupid idea! (5, Insightful)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151353)

I have a way to save 100%. Don't print it!

+1 PARENT. Saves paper too. (-1, Redundant)

toby (759) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151445)

n/t

Re:+1 PARENT. Saves paper too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151563)

I love how you get modded off-topic and some effin' cookie recipe gets modded informative. Slashdot's going to pot.

Re:+1 PARENT. Saves paper too. (0, Troll)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151807)

No, we're trying to increase the quality of the trolling.

I'd rather see cookie recipes than the shit-eating porn or the guide to caring for your new nigger or hidden links to goatse guy.

Cookie recipes? Fucking A delicious... even if the recipe is a little wrong.

Re:What a fucking stupid idea! (1)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151645)

Another way to save 100% of ink is to print it in braille.

Re:What a fucking stupid idea! (1, Interesting)

OglinTatas (710589) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151655)

Exactly. Which is worse, a few squirts of ink, or all the trees that are cut down so you can print out your inbox?

Re:What a fucking stupid idea! (2, Insightful)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151805)

As far as a company is concerned - the ink is a bigger problem. It costs a whole lot more.

Re:What a fucking stupid idea! (2, Insightful)

Sancho (17056) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151851)

You know, everyone gets all up in arms about using paper. Do none of you realize that paper [wikipedia.org] is a renewable resource [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:What a fucking stupid idea! (5, Informative)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151895)

Paper trees are always re-planted after being cut down (it would get unsustainable very quickly if this didn't happen) - and generally also have a lot of recycled material in the final product. The tree-cutting damage comes from the food industry clearing the way for beef cows or corn crops.

Never mind how insanely expensive ink is. The wasted ink is by far worse than the wasted paper. If you want to save a few sheets, shrink your print margins; either way, there's really no net gain or loss in trees.

I agree many things don't need to be printed (4, Insightful)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151731)

But for those that do need to be on paper, you can save 20% just by using a 10 point font instead of a 12 point font!

Re:I agree many things don't need to be printed (5, Funny)

ConfitureDeConfiture (1362343) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151773)

12 * .8 = 9.6 LIAR!

Re:I agree many things don't need to be printed (5, Funny)

von_rick (944421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151823)

Or modify English spellings to conform with those used by 13 y/ olds in their text messages.

u cn save ink n papr 2 !

Re:What a fucking stupid idea! (2, Informative)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151825)

Yes. I love the "paperless" route. I wish I never saw a piece of "real" mail (other than computer parts) or anything else like that in my entire life. It's such a waste of time, landfill space, the killing of trees, etc, etc, etc. Paper is not a necessity except in a few (and becoming fewer) cases.

Now, of course, try convincing people who haven't worked on a computer their whole life of that fact.

Re:What a fucking stupid idea! (2, Insightful)

Sancho (17056) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151893)

Most paper will be readable in 30 years. Will your digital documents?

Microsoft Word dropped support for old document formats fairly recently, so even if you've still got a medium which is readable (cdroms in 30 years? Probably not...) you've got to worry about the file format.

Here's another cleverly simple idea: cookies (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151377)

Chocolate Chip Cookie Recipe

Chocolate chip cookies represent half of the cookies baked in American homes each year. This chocolate chip cookie recipe will produce a treat that is sure to please everyone in your house!

For some additional tips on baking cookies, see our article on tips for baking cookies.

Chocolate Chip Cookie Ingredients
  3/4 cup sugar
  3/4 cup packed brown sugar
  1 cup butter, softened
  2 large eggs,beaten
  1 teaspoon vanilla extract
  2 1/4 cups all-purpose flour
  1 teaspoon baking soda
  3/4 teaspoon salt
  2 cups semisweet chocolate chips
  if desired, 1 cup chopped pecans

Chocolate Chip Cookie Recipe Directions

Preheat oven to 375 degrees. Mix sugar, brown sugar, butter, vanilla and eggs in a large bowl by hand. Stir in flour, baking soda, and salt. The dough will be very stiff. Stir in chocolate chips and pecans if desired. Drop dough by rounded tablespoonfuls 2 inches apart onto ungreased cookie sheet. Bake 8 to 10 minutes or until light brown. The centers will be soft. Let cool completely then remove from cookie sheet.

Re:Here's another cleverly simple idea: cookies (5, Funny)

Fael (939668) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151739)

You forgot the clever part.

Poke holes in the cookies before serving. The cookies are now 20% healthier!

Re:What a fucking stupid idea! (4, Funny)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151677)

f u cn rd ths u cn sv on prntg cst...

ask me how!

Re:What a fucking stupid idea! (3, Funny)

rvw (755107) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151803)

f u cn rd ths u cn sv on prntg cst...

How... Wow... Did you learn that in SMS-class? I have a better idea however. It seems that only the upper half of the letter is necessary for reading. That would save 50%!

Re:What a fucking stupid idea! (4, Funny)

Feanturi (99866) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151915)

Go stick your head in a pig!

Re:What a fucking stupid idea! (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151697)

You have to use a font that is thick enough to have a bunch of holes cut out of it. You could save even more ink by printing in a smaller font.

That assertion is based on cost figures for newspaper classified pages; drop the font size, save a ton of ink and paper. Papers all over the country have been doing this for years as their margins shrink.

But apparently they could have switched to this larger font with holes in it! Genius!

Re:What a fucking stupid idea! (3, Funny)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151905)

I just installed this to have a look at it. Didn't appear in OpenOffice. OK, guess I did something wrong. Fiddled about, removed, reinstalled, regenerated font-cache.

Nope.

Checked another applicaion...nope no 'Ecofont'

*30 infuriating minutes later*

THE FONT NAME IS 'SPRANQ ECOFONT'? Dear holy frak that took me ages to find. Who the hell prefixes their goddamn font with a company name. No one. God that pissed me off. MOTHERFUCKING *VENTING* GRRRRR.

Nice font though.

Re:What a fucking stupid idea! (1)

againjj (1132651) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151923)

How about printing the glyph outlines. On the old Macs, this was a standard option.

Actually... (1)

toby (759) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151375)

Numbered among the Dutch are many of the greatest living (and dead) type designers in history.

This idea is pretty dumb though, and seems to be born of typographic ignorance.

Re:What a fucking stupid idea! (5, Funny)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151585)

I agree. Their idea is redundant as most letters come pre-made with holes in them.

Practicality? (5, Interesting)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151275)

Looks interesting, but probably not very practical. Surely simply printing in draft mode and in grey-scale is an easier way? On screen this is probably going to be more headache than its worth.

Re:Practicality? (2, Insightful)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151495)

On screen this is probably going to be more headache than its worth.

On screen it isn't worth anything. But really, this is obviously a gimmick with little to no benefit. Much like Blackle.

Re:Practicality? (5, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151607)

Ahhh... so, bonus points for @media print{body{font-family:Spranq Eco Sans;}}?

This is pointless (5, Informative)

toby (759) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151283)

These people don't seem aware that typefaces are usually available in many weights.

You can save much more than this by simply changing to a lighter weight. [fontshop.com]

(I am a typographer. But it shouldn't take one to figure this out.)

Re:This is pointless (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151351)

I'm wondering, since you are an expert... :)

Shouldn't they have done this with a serif font if it is meant to save ink/toner? Does anyone print sans-serif?

Re:This is pointless (3, Interesting)

pbhj (607776) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151469)

Shouldn't they have done this with a serif font if it is meant to save ink/toner?

Surely all the serifs would cancel out the saving from the holes?

Re:This is pointless (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151555)

What I meant is, they seem to have modified a screen font. If you are trying to save toner/ink, I would think that choosing a printed font would be more effective.

I know that you CAN print a sans-serif font, but I thought that the rule of thumb was that serif fonts should be used for print.

That said, I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about - thus why I asked the question :)

Re:This is pointless (5, Funny)

Lobster Quadrille (965591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151665)

That said, I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about

Don't worry, it doesn't show.

Re:This is pointless (5, Funny)

bugnuts (94678) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151549)

Shouldn't they have done this with a serif font if it is meant to save ink/toner?

They started with a serif font. What's left is sans serif.

Re:This is pointless (1)

HouseOfMisterE (659953) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151619)

I use "Arial" for almost everything that I type and/or print, and it is a sans-serif font.

Re:This is pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151911)

My designer loathes you and me :/

Re:This is pointless (5, Funny)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151467)

Ah, but lighter weight fonts don't have the magical prefix "eco" in front of their names.

Re:This is pointless (5, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151517)

Yea, Light is so last century. It's all about the Eco now.

Re:This is pointless (3, Funny)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151681)

So "green" is the new "pink" and "eco" is the new "black"? Or is "black" the new "light"? I'm so confused.

Re:This is pointless (5, Funny)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151779)

So "green" is the new "pink" and "eco" is the new "black"? Or is "black" the new "light"? I'm so confused.

You are so dead at the next zebra crossing.

Re:This is pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151721)

You're a typographer, so I'll forgive the oversight of the fact that fonts/typefaces cost $Big$Money$ and most people only use the dozen or so "free" ones that come with every computer.

It's much simpler just to tell your printer to use less ink, and let the printer drivers handle everything for you.

Oh, and has anyone else noticed that this company's name is "Spranq", pronounced (I assume) sss-prank, as in "It's a prank"? I think this is just a prank making fun of the "green movement". (I last had one when I ate too many Flintstone's vitamins, myself. Too much iron.)

I fucking hate indians (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151297)

They act like they know what they are talking about, even when they don't.

The confirmation that you have in fact been talking to a simulation of someone who understands what you are saying often comes too late.

Horrible (4, Insightful)

WPIDalamar (122110) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151299)

At big sizes the holes make it look horrible. At small sizes it's not all that readable as far as fonts go.

You might as well print at 80% grey instead of black to get the same savings and have it look better.

Re:Horrible (4, Insightful)

pbhj (607776) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151511)

From the website:

View the Ecofont

In the picture you can see how the Ecofont is created by omitting parts of the letter. At the shown size, this obviously is not very nice, but at a regular font size it is actually very usable.

It must look pretty horrible at smaller sizes too otherwise I think they might have shown us a sample, no?

If they'd constructed it out of Sierpinski gasket they would have saved a lot more!

Nice bit of viral marketing for Spranq methinks.

Re:Horrible (2, Insightful)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151709)

It's not supposed to look good on screen. It is to save ink when printing.

Re:Horrible (1)

wondershit (1231886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151797)

It must look pretty horrible at smaller sizes too otherwise I think they might have shown us a sample, no?

Then zoom out? But then given the limited density of pixels on the screen how do you suppose to see a usable result? (from Wikipedia: displays have something between 67 to 130 PPI, a laser printer has 600 to 1800 DPI).

Unfortunately (4, Funny)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151305)

"Unfortunately, the font is only available at 120pt or higher, so it will takes twelve times the paper to print out your book report."

I'm willing to make that sacrifice if it means saving Mother Earth!

Not just for saving ink (4, Funny)

nizo (81281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151327)

Just imagine how many electrons could be saved if people used this font in their browser.

Re:Not just for saving ink (1)

thewiz (24994) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151403)

Use it as your default font on your computer; you'll be able to get the same resolution on a 20% smaller monitor!

Re:Not just for saving ink (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151465)

Wouldn't it actually be using MORE electrons to display all those nice glowy white spaces?

Re:Not just for saving ink (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151617)

No, silly, you'd be using white text on a black background. The holes would be black.

Re:Not just for saving ink (2, Funny)

nizo (81281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151667)

The horrible part comes when you do a screen print and forget to swap the colors, thus negating all that money you were saving on toner.

Re:Not just for saving ink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151799)

"No, silly, you'd be using white text on a black background."

YUCK!!! I gave that color scheme up with MS-DOS 6.

Re:Not just for saving ink (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151879)

If the holes are black, then the entire font can be a "hole" on a white background...

Reminds me of philosophy...

Re:Not just for saving ink (1)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151475)

or started using LCDs instead of CRTs.

Re:Not just for saving ink (5, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151629)

On an LCD, you should use a dark theme in the winter so that the dark pixels soak up the extra backlight photons and convert them into heat. In the summer, go with a lighter theme that will let all of the photons out before they have a chance to run up your AC bill. Oh, and make sure you set the monitor up near a window so the extra photons can just keep right on going.

Depends... CRT, Plasma, LCD, or what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151579)

On a CRT, plasma, or other direct emission display (OLEP, etc), the more black, the better.

On the other hand, on an LCD it can be more complicated. Is the resting state of the pixels "open" or "closed" to light? If "on" is the resting state, then the whiter the better. On the other hand, if "off" is the resting state, the blacker the better. On the third hand, if the display has a dynamic backlight that can be dimmed to provide blacker blacks, even with "on" as the resting state, with less backlight, "off" could be the overall lower power state.

Things sure were easier back in the monochrome character-generator-display days. To use less power, you'd just shut up and type shorter posts. :D

Re:Not just for saving ink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151795)

Given that most web pages use white backgrounds, a proper web font should occupy MORE space, so as to minimise the amount of visible background (which is what really draws power).

Re:Not just for saving ink (1)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151841)

You were modded funny, but I bet if I told certain people this, they would believe me...

Re:Not just for saving ink (4, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151847)

Just imagine how many electrons could be saved if people used this font in their browser.

I always recycle my electrons.

This is the printer's job. (3, Interesting)

booyabazooka (833351) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151329)

The 'economy mode' on my rather old laser printer basically does this. It just sort of prints letter outlines instead of the full letter. Ecofont's solution seems like... leaky abstraction? The print-saving settings are now embedded into a document rather than determined at print time. Sounds like a terrible idea for a problem that's already been solved.

Re:This is the printer's job. (3, Interesting)

tirerim (1108567) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151429)

Most economy modes (at least on inkjet printers) just print the letters lighter; this should provide additional savings over that. It may well be more readable than just outlines, too -- I find outlined text very hard to read.

Wouldn't it be easier... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151349)

to simply use a little less ink by printing each letter a little lighter? For example, turning on the "toner saver" mode in a laser printer. Particularly given that the "ecofont" is recommended for laser printers.

Re:Wouldn't it be easier... (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151381)

Finally, a reason to dust off all those eco friendly dot matrix printers that have a "draft" mode.

Outline eco-mode (0, Redundant)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151385)

This has been a feature in printer drivers for donkeys ages ; I remember an "eco" mode that only printed the outlines of the font. Much more flexible than having to use a particular font, and not all that noticable at smaller print sizes.

Errr, it won't cut laser toner use... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151441)

...seeing as a laser printer throws an entire page of black toner at the page, with the charged parts of the paper holding onto it. The toner that hits the non-charged holes will just fall into the waste toner holder.

Would work better on inkjet printers though.

Re:Errr, it won't cut laser toner use... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151489)

Probably why the summary and article say "ink" and not "toner".

Re:Errr, it won't cut laser toner use... (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151597)

Well the summary and article may have said that. But from the ecofont website:

Printing with a laser printer will give the best printing results

http://www.ecofont.eu/look_at_ecofont_en.html [ecofont.eu]

Re:Errr, it won't cut laser toner use... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151903)

Oh, heh. That's funny.

Re:Errr, it won't cut laser toner use... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151505)

-1 Wrong [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Errr, it won't cut laser toner use... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151573)

that's only on shitty printers. Real ones recycle the toner.

Too bad the font is *ugly*. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151459)

If the font weren't so gosh-darn ugly, I might think about using it. On the other hand, consider how much time I'll save not reading things because they're ugly.

(Hey, it worked for dating.)

Holy Illegible Font, Batman! (2, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151479)

You know you were thinking it.

Re:Holy Illegible Font, Batman! (2, Insightful)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151559)

Aw darn, you beat me by 3 minutes.

But how much e-ink (4, Funny)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151497)

will it save while I view documents on my ereader?

The obligatory line: (2, Funny)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151519)

Holy Fonts, Batman!

Horrible on screen (3, Informative)

Fanro (130986) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151529)

Looks absolutely horrible on screen, fuzzy and irregular letters at lower font sizes.

And at bigger sizes the holes themselves start to look jagged.

does that improve in print?

Re:Horrible on screen (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151625)

No, but from your description it sounds better than most of the fonts currently available to Linux users.

Re:Horrible on screen (4, Informative)

Galaga88 (148206) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151741)

I printed off a quick test to an HP LaserJet 4100 from Word 2007 in WinXP, and it looks a lot better in print than on screen. 10 & 11 point being where it looks best. You can still see the holes, but they're not as glaringly obvious or jagged as when displayed on screen.

Re:Horrible on screen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151885)

Printed it at work (using laser printer tho) and it looks very good on paper.

I agree it doesnt look so good on screen tho... i guess you could do switch font before printing and ctrl-z'ing after...

gray color (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151565)

wouldn't printing using gray color produce the same effect with any font?

Re:gray color (3, Funny)

Lobster Quadrille (965591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151875)

Yeah, but it uses up all your gray ink.

Draft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151567)

...or a company could just use the "draft" feature that most every bit of software has when the said person is not in need of presentation quality. Probably redundant, but yeah

In other news... (2, Funny)

Subm (79417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151571)

In other news several Dutch legal firms were visited by executives from Epson, HP, and Lexmark, muttering about theft of lost revenues.

Dot Matrix Draft (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151575)

I prefer to use Inverted Ecofont, in which everything else is removed and only the holes remain. This saves 80% of the ink, and it known to some people as "dot-matrix draft mode".

This is new font is stupid and not news.

"gayestwebsiteever" tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151581)

Seriously guys, can we grow up? Humorous or ironic tags are one thing, but this is just absurd.

I counteract this (1)

cheftw (996831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151641)

I print all my documents inverted so this will actually cost me more ink!

better idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151675)

just cut off the parts of the font that arn't needed

for starters, start off with an arial-looking font, you don't need all the little hooks at the end of each part of characters, that's wasted ink!

you'd probably be better off simply cutting out bits of each letter, for instance, if the pixel that connected the loop of the "e" to the rest of it suddenly was gone, no one would have trouble seeing it was an "e" even at small fonts... a similar solution could probably be found for most characters.

hw abt usng txt tlk n jst omt sum vwls r sumtn?

in general it's a bad idea.

Fuck EcoFont, I want GreenFont... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151701)

..this is getting retarded.

That's nothing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151717)

My eco-efforts included making mine thinner...

out of ink? (1)

shafty023 (993689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151753)

just looks like the printer is running out of ink

Repurposed (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151845)

The software item with the greatest practical joke potential since desktop look-alike screensavers.

"I printed the nozzle check pattern a million times but my documents still all look like crap!"

Gray shading (1)

CmdrPorno (115048) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151783)

Why not just print with the printer in "eco" mode or change the font color from black to dark gray? And, as another poster suggested, use a font with a smaller footprint (e.g. Courier New rather than Times New Roman).

Invisible Ink... (1)

Seismologist (617169) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151817)

I use invisible ink [spy-equipm...-guide.com] so you can't see how much ink I use. I also use CIA font for this ink in case you're wondering.

What a waste! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151827)

"Ecofont" uses 75% more letters than plain old "font".

Real Conservationists....... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151855)

...print everything as an outline.

Plus you have the added fun of being able to color in all the letters later!

Dutch? Really? (3, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151863)

I would've expected such an idea to come from Switzerland.

Looks like letters in the freeway signs. (1)

Neanderthal Ninny (1153369) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151891)

On the certain freeways signs they used a bunch of reflective dots on the pattern of letter or symbol and this font looks like that.
Good for rough drafts and other non-production work. However if your work is doing eco-friendly work maybe this font will be great to show how you are helping the environment.

In Gray? (0, Redundant)

hhr (909621) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151919)

Why don't you just print in say 80% blakc? If you have a color printer, you'd have to turn off the printers ability to help out with ink from the color cartridge. But, other than that, this should be the same thing
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>