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?
Thread beginning with comment 369998
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by kaiwai
by rhy7s on Wed 24th Jun 2009 06:26 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
rhy7s
Member since:
2008-08-04

Have a look at the different weight of the i's in "Spirit of Summer", and anywhere else with a bit of verticality to it, look at the l's in "All". Along with the occasional collisions of characters, there's that sort of sandpapered look to the text when you see a block of it, as if some of the letters have been partially obscured or rubbed away. For example, in "Clapton" the C and t look like a different weight to the rest of the name.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Wed 24th Jun 2009 07:41 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Have a look at the different weight of the i's in "Spirit of Summer", and anywhere else with a bit of verticality to it, look at the l's in "All". Along with the occasional collisions of characters, there's that sort of sandpapered look to the text when you see a block of it, as if some of the letters have been partially obscured or rubbed away. For example, in "Clapton" the C and t look like a different weight to the rest of the name.


Oh, come on, what a load of horse crap - I've just spent a good 15 minutes with my face up against the screen scanning the photo working out what the hell you're going on about - show me exactly where it is - because none of what you say exists except maybe in your mind.

Honestly, you're as bad as those Windows zealots who would look at Freetype and make up artifacts simply to bolster their position rather than accepting that rendering wasn't so bad as to burn their eyes.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Glynser on Wed 24th Jun 2009 07:54 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Glynser Member since:
2007-11-29

I really can't believe your ignorant comments. You could at least open your screenshot in a graphics program and zoom in, then you'll see that both "l" letters of the word "All" are rendered completely different.

And to the question of maximizing: I'm not a browser noob, and I know how to maximize screenshots. Besides that, my browser doesn't shink by default. I know what I'm talking about, and I think it's YOUR eyes that have a problem.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 24th Jun 2009 08:51 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Uhm, I see those differences too, and I'm a long-time Mac user. Fonts on Mac OS X ARE fuzzy, there's no denying that. Heck, it's a feature, not a bug.

You're just so used to it that you can't even accept that fact. Try putting a row of i or l, and you'll see a "wave" going through it of ones that are "blacker" than the other. It's clearly obvious and well-documented that it makes absolutely no sense to deny it.

Reply Parent Score: 2