W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 1997

Re: Font Smoothing and CSS

From: <S.N.Brodie@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 11:23:04 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <28332.9709091023@mccarthy.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: fahrner@pobox.com (Todd Fahrner)
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Todd Fahrner wrote:
> 
> I do agree that anti-aliasing is critical to rendering a wide variety of
> typefaces attractively at screen resolution. 

It makes a tremendous difference.  The quality of text display I get
from IE* or Netscape* is, frankly, rubbish - but most of my colleagues
think it is OK - I'm just used to nicely anti-aliased text all over my
desktop.

* Version 3 of both running on an NT4 server

> But I think this may be a minority opinion - many people complain
> about "fuzziness," no matter how well-done.

It would be interesting to discover user opinion from a wider survey.
You'd have to include the font technology they they based their
comments on too, as you wouldn't want to be confused by poor
implementations.

I've found that when I have to use Microsoft Windows, I have to use
large fonts because the smaller ones are unreadable.  On my own
machine, I can happily use smaller fonts and everything remains far
more legible.  Apart from the Acorn RISC OS font manager, which is
built-in to my computer, the only other system I have only seen the
Microsoft font smoothing.  I haven't seen TrueDoc as it doesn't appear
to be supported on RISC OS yet as far as I've noticed.


-- 
Stewart Brodie, Electronics & Computer Science, Southampton University.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~snb94r/
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 1997 06:26:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:51 GMT