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 369995
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No AA for me, please
by Glynser on Wed 24th Jun 2009 06:20 UTC
Member since:

I always turn it off completely, as I prefer on-screen-readability, and this means for me that I don't want that smudgy smoothed stuff, I want raw pixels. Not because I'm a total pixel fanatic (which I am, admitted), but because I still think it looks much better and clearer than any "Clear"Type technology could ever be.

For layouting stuff, I think it's nice if graphic programs can smooth it, but this is something entirely different. That's why I don't think the MacOS way is a useful one, because I won't print out my on-screen window text, so I simply don't need those glyphs to be rendered as they would on paper (which is not true anyway, because on paper it would be clear, not smudgy).

Sadly, under Linux, it's a different story. Because of patents stuff, it's not easy to get non-AA fonts there. I installed freetype-freeworld, and it mostly works and looks superb, but in some windows it doesn't work, and this means that text looks really horrible (especially in the browser).

BTW, here's a nice comparison pic (also because it shows the old OSnews ;)
To me, the right side is the clear (hehe) winner. It's just more satisfying on my eyes than that smudgy crap.

PS: I especially hate AA on monospaced pixel fonts. It's two worlds colliding.

Edited 2009-06-24 06:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2