> “ To wrap up, we included arrows, circular numbers, and improved symbols for use within Markdown – the commonly used text markup language that Supernotes is built around.”

—-

It’s the ligatures they created.

  (1) through (9)

  Checkmark 

  —->

Etc

How are arrows and circular numbers markdown features? They’re not part of the language. Maybe the checkmark would be justified, for checklists, but even then an x is clearer and it’s not like you can’t do proper checkmarks with other fonts. Or arrows, for that matter.

Markdown has numbered lists, checkboxes, and bullet points - having ligatures that look better w/ those are not crazy.

> numbered lists

Do we know that that’s how the circular numbers are used? They don’t say. Personally I’d dislike that in my numbered lists, but I’m sure others would like it.

> checkboxes

Again, I doubt those checkmarks are clearer than an x. But again, I can see how some people would prefer those. That’s not nothing new to this font, though.

> and bullet points

Where are the bullet points in that example? I don’t see a bullet symbol.

> having ligatures

Ligatures are useful for none of those examples. And it’s not even clear if that’s how they work, since they specifically and exclusively mention ligatures for arrows, not the other symbols. Furthermore, they specifically mention (emphasis mine) “improving support for Markdown and ligatures” meaning those are separate features.

> that look better w/ those are not crazy.

Who called it crazy? Please don’t straw man, I’m not arguing there’s something wrong with adding those features, I’m asking how they relate to writing markdown. Which they mention but haven’t explained. How, specifically, is writing markdown improved by using this font?

It does explain it though?

> To wrap up, we included arrows, circular numbers, and improved symbols for use within Markdown – the commonly used text markup language that Supernotes is built around.

and then it has an image of the 'Markdown' marks and Symbol additions

And yet those symbols aren’t relevant for markdown. The octothorp and asterisk, sure, and maybe the checkmark if we stretch its use to checklists (which may make them less clear), but they’re not different enough from other fonts to be worthy of note.

You’ve pointed out a couple times that checkmarks are not clear for checkboxes. This statement feels a bit off in the sense that it’s like saying you shouldn’t put “cookies” in a “cookie jar” or any other item inside of a container named for item - could you elaborate on why checkmarks are not intuitive when placed inside of checkboxes?

Tobias, creator of SN Pro here. Most sans-serif fonts are not designed with Markdown in mind. The asterisks are too small and high, backticks are not noticeable, and combining different symbols such as for footnotes looks off. Here's a comparison for you between Nunito and SN Pro: https://my.supernotes.app/share/iron+junior+degree+doctor

Extending this with additional ligatures and arrows makes this typeface more ideal for reading and editing quickly.

Thank you. This is the specific answer I was looking for.

Small note: on that link the footnote syntax is wrong (unless Supernotes uses their own specific syntax) in that it should be [^Footnote] (caret inside the brackets).

Aha that's just an inline footnote, we support both in Supernotes. So you can quickly write ^[Name of Reference] (that will auto assign it the number 1 once rendered) rather than [^1] ... [1]: Name of Reference.

Footnotes aren't part of the original Markdown specification (https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/)