I can figure out some of the words, but I wouldn't really call that font "legible".
Edit: Well, apparently I didn't even realize it was the lyrics to Never gonna give you up. Tells you how hard to read the font is! Once you know it though, the font suddenly becomes much easier to read!
This really depends on your display being exactly the same type as the author's. I have to just about rub my laptop screen on my nose, but once I do that all the words are perfectly legible for me. (I don't mean pleasantly legible, but I can definitely read it.) If you look at Cleartype or font smoothing controls, you can see how many types of LCD monitors there have been.
Gamma/colour temperature settings also affect this massively. It's nighttime here, and f.lux has dimmed my screen to make me sleepy. No chance of reading it. That said, I'm having severe trouble making it out even with f.lux disabled on all my screens. (30" Cinema HD, old 19" Iiyama - both with VA panels, and 13" MacBook - TN panel AFAIK)
This font has the unusual property that zooming in (using e.g. Ctrl+ScrollWheelUp on a Mac) actually makes it less legible.
It does help you appreciate just how small we can make pixels, though. Given that we can make pixels so small, I wonder if there could be a market for B&W triple-resolution display? If I valued high-res over colour?
"This font has the unusual property that zooming in (using e.g. Ctrl+ScrollWheelUp on a Mac) actually makes it less legible."
Hrm, it's possible to write a zoom tool that emulates the LCD sub-pixel effects. I bet that people working on such technologies already use one, otherwise they'd lose their sight squinting at their monitors.
that's neat (i can read it on my laptop screen no problems).
years ago i tried to get a minimal font with no aliasing - it's 2 pixels wide (plus space) and visible at http://www.acooke.org/minimal/ and http://www.acooke.org/minimal/background.html (but this cleartype approach is more readable - mine requires a lot of effort (note that it's best to read mine at its smallest size - making it bigger does not help because it relies on using shapes that look like they're blurred out at small sizes))
It was some years ago. I don't remember ever being able to read it easily and certainly can't now. The letter "c" was (and is) the worst ("z" too, but it's hardly used) - the problem is that there are too many small letters for the central 4 pixels.
The best way I've found to "read" it is to learn "c" and then guess words given the context and easier letters...
I think it could be made more legible by having a lowercase font instead. Most of us are accustomed to recognizing entire words by just the shape of them, but uppercase text doesn't provide much cues for such pattern-matching.