| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
AmazingAmazingPosted Sep 24, 2007 22:48 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165)Parent article: Font rasterization techniques
It's amazing how easy it is to see the differences he calls out, and how much better, how much easier on the eyes, his text is.
These days, code should assume it's rendering for an LC display unless told otherwise.
I hope Gnome 2.22, and the next Gecko, get all this right. I recall time after time trying out lists of default typefaces in browsers, disappointed each time a mature, well-designed face came out blotchy and uneven, often with some strokes invisible; and ultimately settling again on Vera just because it doesn't look actively bad.
(Log in to post comments)
Amazing Posted Sep 25, 2007 3:26 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] A large part of the problem is that our fonts are simply not designed for that sort of use right now. Turn on subpixel anti-aliasing and either disable hinting or set it to slight. Now type some content in Vera Sans at a moderate pixel height (15 pixels or so is probably enough, but 20 should also show it). Marvel at how the vertical strokes suddenly gain offensively obvious colour fringes.
There are some tricks we can play with different colouring algorithms for subpixel anti-aliasing which can improve the perceived rendering of the font in many cases, but moving to a model where we don't try to align the glyphs to whole pixel boundaries is going to require a good set of fonts that cope with that model.
|
|
||||||||||||