[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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". AA fonts are not universally easier to read - anyone with a poorly set up monitor will probably find them so, but having crisp edges to a letter makes it, IMHO, much easier to read - I don't have to keep checking that I've got my glasses on. There may be some cases where they are, but in my experience they aren't. (Yes this means I often type documents in one font then switch it en masse to format and print)
> > "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? IIRC this is a well known factoid A small study: http://www.wilsonweb.com/wmt6/html-email-fonts.htm Google reveals many more... One of the difficulties with serif fonts on a screen is that those fiddly bits are really hard to represent with a limited resolution, fonts that are designed for screen (as opposed to print) are, probably fairly obviously (for well designed fonts), going to work better on screen. > > "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. Not here it doesn't... John.
