Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 23rd Jun 2009 21:40 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 369978
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-02
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!