Thanks everybody for your hints and suggestions. I apologize for the
delay in answering; I had no time to care about my personal site for the
last few weeks.
Am 19.09.2013 22:31 schrieb Jukka K. Korpela:
> Generally, font rendering is a rather complicated issue and depends
> on operating system, browser, display device, and other things. I
> think you should focus on one font at a time, in a simple setup, and
> experiment with different font sizes. I have seen Google fonts that
> mysteriously look very bad in some size but essentially better in a
> size 1px larger or smaller. This is bad news for those who favor the
> principle "let the user decide", since this normally means that the
> browser's default size will be used. On the other hand, checking with
> typical default size of 12pt should then deal with most problem of
> this type.
The font sizes are all relative to 1em; copytext is 1em. So I changed
all percentages, margins, line-heights etc to values that compute to
integer numbers in the "Computed" section of Firebug, with the standard
setting of 1em=16px. Like this, the computed font sizes are now 16px,
18px, 22px and 28px. At first, this had no influence on the font
rendering at all.
> Oddly enough, when I try to use the Font Information 1.0 add-on
> (which normally works excellently) in Firefox on your page, I get
> basically blank font names (names consisting of "." and a box), in
> addition to the varying Google font names. So I suspect that there
> might be something wrong with the font files of the copy text - at
> least a broken name table.
I did not find this add-on, it may have been made unavailable since your
message.
Am 20.09.2013 02:03 schrieb Philippe Wittenbergh:
> use the FontSquirel tool to generated a WOFF file, and use
> that as the first choice, rather than use the .ttf file you have
> listed first now.
Am 19.09.2013 23:45 schrieb Karl DeSaulniers:
> It's been my experience that you should always load the .ttf before
> the .woff in the css declaration because chrome and Firefox like the
> .ttf better
Interesting how experiences differ. I tried both orders, they did not
differ, at least on my computer.
But then I downloaded the font files again from FontSquirrel (originally
I had them from the DaltonMaag website), and re-generated the webfonts
(actually I had originally generated them with FontSquirrel, too). This
did dramatically enhance the rendering!
So it looks like either there are different versions of Aller available
from DaltonMaag and FontSquirrel, that render differently when converted
to webfonts, or I made a mistake the first time I generated the webfonts.
Am 20.09.2013 00:01 schrieb Barney Carroll:
> On a tangent, I've found that Chrome (and now Opera — they use the
> same rendering engine) on Windows don't hint fonts as well as other
> browsers. You can sometimes get round this by specifying `-webkit-
> text-stroke: .25px` (your mileage may vary — play with the exact
> sub-pixel value to see what does and doesn't work). The gotcha is
> that this may make the font look worse in Safari OSX. Worth a shot…
Nice one - I had not known about -webkit-text-stroke. Anyway, now the
rendering is fixed, this property makes it rather worse than better.
So now the copy text is fixed, I am fine, thank you all again. Maybe
some day I will take the time to download all the title fonts and
generate proper webfonts, too.
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
