- From: <S.N.Brodie@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 11:23:04 +0100 (BST)
- 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 UTC