lee <[email protected]> writes: > Isn't ant-aliasing supposed to make fonts more pretty and easier to read > instead of messing them up and making them very straining for the eyes?
It generally does, but like anything, YMMV. Anti-aliasing parameters can have a big effect on the final look (e.g., subpixel rendering vs. gray-scale-only; "cleartype"-style grid-snapping vs. apple-style "fuzzy", etc), and in the end, it's personal preference -- some people prefer the "crisp" look of traditional fonts, others prefer the "smooth" look of anti-aliased fonts. Sometimes it just depends on the particular font and circumstance, not any general rule. I generally like anti-aliased fonts better, but with the font anti-aliasing settings tweaked to make them look more contrasty and crisper than the default settings (I use the gnome font-preferences widget to change them). Two important things: (1) use "high contrast / light" mode, which tries to make character stems etc exactly one pixel wide (even if it means slightly distorting [usually unnoticeably] the character shape/weight), and (2) if you have an LCD, turn on sub-pixel rendering, which often allows the font-renderer to do a better job. -Miles -- Christian, n. One who follows the teachings of Christ so long as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
