Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 23rd Jun 2009 21:40 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces The Engineering 7 weblog has an item about the improvements made in the ClearType font rendering technology which has been included in Windows since Windows XP. While I won't go too deeply into that post, I did figure it was a good opportunity to talk about font antialiasing in general; which type do you prefer?
Permalink for comment 369978
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
A moot point
by dylansmrjones on Wed 24th Jun 2009 02:54 UTC
Member since:

The battle between readability and shape accuracy is pretty moot these days with reasonably high resolution monitors. It is perfectly possible to get screen accuracy with high readability, as long as you stay away from using resolution below 1280*960 (or something very close to it).

In 640*480 on a normal sized monitor (13"-17"), I prefer no antializing or readability antialiazing (Cleartype or an equivalent).

In 1600*1200 I strongly prefer shape accuracy, since the resolution is so high that shape accuracy doesn't harm readability.

That said I dislike Cleartype since it is a socalled dumb renderer. 'Tis a thing I've inherited from doing DTP-work and font designing on Mac OS Classic (and OS/2).

Postscript for teh win! ;)

Reply Score: 2