> This is a very unscientific test. Obviously, the browser which supports > anti-aliasing (albeit only on one platform) "looks better" than those > that don't. Other than that, there's not much to choose between them.
I thought the anti-aliased text was the ugliest. Maybe it looks better than normal text at high resolutions, but at 800x600 it looks blurry and makes curved lines look thicker than straight lines. > A far better question to ask is "which renders the page the way the > author intended"? HTML is not a language for specifying pixel-perfect > layout (CSS helps to do this) and so, if things are not specified, > user-agents have a lot of freedom in how the render things, and one > rendering is no more "right" than another. Therefore asking someone to > judge which page "looks better" is silly - if you say "Hmm, I like the > spacing between those two blocks of text in Browser X", it could be that > it's caused by a bug in Browser X and the other browsers are getting it > right. Is Browser X's rendering still "better"? As long as two browsers are both right, there's no reason to throw out someone's opinion that one looks better.
