On Sunday 19 March 2006 22:50, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > > [*] The case against blurred fonts: > http://modeemi.fi/~tuomov/b/archives/2006/03/17/T20_15_31/
People like AA fonts. They're easier to read because they don't have so many incorrect artifacts as the ones drawn by people trying to depict curves with squares. Especially when they make non-AA fonts scalable, thus subjecting the non-curved shapes to the inaccuracies of integer mathematics. Making curves straight is like saying "1.5 = 1". "Serif fonts are more readable than sans-serif fonts on paper. On screen, the case is the opposite. " Possibly true, but did you read this in a text book or is this just a baseless claim? Have you done a survey of 100 people, or is this just an assumption? "Xft provides clear, crisp unblurred fonts without rasterisation effects on all significant distributions. This will most likely happen after a revolution that abolishes the patent system in its entirety, or when the significant distributions go underground, by moving distribution to anonymous p2p networks or such." - viva la revolution!!! er.. good luck! PS. the 'y' in 'only' on that page has a big square block on the intersection between the three lines which is distracting. It wouldn't be so distracting if it was in a slightly paler colour.
