|WikiProject Typography||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
I'm not so sure that it was the case that typists used 1 and l and 0 and O interchangeably - it was more that, because these look similar, many typewriter manufacturers economised by having no 1 key (and sometimes no 0 key), the typist then being obliged to use lower-case L (and upper-case O, respectively). So the use of lower-case L for 1 was out of necessity rather than choice. I don't think any typist would deliberately have used 1 (one), if it was available, for a lower-case L, not least because this is inefficient for a touch-typist. This suggests that the use of lower-case L for 1 (and O for 0) was one-way rather than interchangeable. — Paul G 08:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to reference the site homoglyphs.net which lists homoglyphs to the basic Latin characters from various (selectable) Unicode ranges and also allows the user to generate a homograph using these ranges. As the site was put up by me, in accordance with WP:EL I'd like to ask here if it would be OK to add an External Links section and link that site. Tschild (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to reference the site Namkara homoglyph registration which lists the many homoglyphs of a user-entered domain name, vis-a-vis Unicode Consortium's UTR#36. Some filtering is applied to limit homoglyphs to those domain names that may be supported by domain name registry policies. As the site is owned by me, I'd like to avoid conflict-of-interest and request here for the addition of the aforementioned external link. Mja52590 (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
"Most current type designs carefully distinguish between these homoglyphs"? Seriously?
As a matter of "original research," I'm deeply dubious of the article's sunny claim that "Most current type designs carefully distinguish between these homoglyphs." It seems to me, on the web, that I struggle daily with even just the basic "eye-ell-one" and "zero-oh" ambiguities. When I go hunting for a font for my own use, I generally check these out, and I very rarely can find a font that satisfactorily distinguishes them. Perhaps the remark means "Most currently-designed ..." rather than "Most currently-used ...", but if so it's a nearly empty phrase: "new" designs almost always pay honor to some classic homoglyph-happy face. - Jackrepenning (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)