- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:57:08 +0100 (BST)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> If it is blurred at its intended size, zooming in will only make it worse. It is not a fault for raster image text to be blurred at its intended resolution; it is how dot matric characters can work at all without looking pixellated. In fact, anti-aliasing is itself a blurring (low pass spatial filter, operation, and that is generally considered desirable). My argument is that oversized pixellated images, when blurred to the same relative level are no less readable than would be the intended size viewed by someone with good vision. There may be issues that the perception process for large print is fundamentally different, e.g. because the whole image cannot be on the fovea at the same time, and because non-integral scaling factors do introduce artifacts. Interestingly, I'm getting attacked from both sides here, as someone else is suggesting that I'm totally against text as images (I do tbink that most web use of them is misuse of the technology - it needs a powerful graphics language, not a back with bitmaps, to do it properly - so that the text is really there but transformed in the user agent).
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 02:57:12 UTC