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 369985
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Wrong assumption
by Wowbagger on Wed 24th Jun 2009 04:17 UTC
Member since:

Your post assumes that ClearType is more readable on displays as OS X's font rendering. Forgive me, but I think that assumption in itself is wrong.

Most fonts we have available are designed for print so the shape they are supposed to have are the ones they have on paper. For that purpose they are designed and for that purpose they are very readable. Changing that shape means in most cases making them less readable. So what is wrong in trying to get as close to the shape of the font as the font designer made it to be?

Apart from that I have to use a lot of Japanese in my working environment and for these languages ClearType is simply put a disaster.

And last but not least these rainbow-effects you get from ClearType are definitely not improving the readability either.

Also, why do you think is it that most typographers prefer OS X's font rendering? If anyone should know about type it's them, isn't it?

Edited 2009-06-24 04:18 UTC

Reply Score: 3