Calum ([info]zootm) wrote,
@ 2007-06-12 20:15:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
After my post a bit earlier in Windows Safari, [info]kurisu posted this fascinating article on the differences between Windows and OS X (and now Safari for Windows) font rendering, which has puzzled me for ages.

A quick summary is that Apple want the fonts to look nice, whereas Microsoft want the text to be more readable. I think it's fair to say that neither is "better", but it's interesting to see the way the different approaches go.

(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]xzxzzx
2007-06-13 04:05 pm UTC (link)
I understand the point, but I think Apple's "making the fonts look nice" make the fonts look terrible. It's not just a readability aspect, they actually look worse.

I could see having such rendering for a print-based application, Word or something, but for a web browser, which is [i]not[/i] meant to go on paper, I think it's a terrible idea.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]zootm
2007-06-13 04:07 pm UTC (link)
A lot of people seem to prefer it, though. And honestly, if I wanted to have a screenshot of a site to make it look nice, I'd probably at least consider using Safari; the stuff is more typographically "correct" using that rendering, which in the context of an image of a site may well look better. For usability it's probably worse, though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]xzxzzx
2007-06-13 04:31 pm UTC (link)
See, that's basically a bad idea though. Remember, sub-pixel rendering is display-dependent, and not all LCDs are RGB, nor are all monitors LCD.

This isn't unique to Apple's solution, but the inability to turn the fucking shit off is a problem if you want to take a screenshot.

That having been said, I'd probably consider Safari if I wanted to print a web page and make it look nice.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]zootm
2007-06-13 04:34 pm UTC (link)
If you want to print a webpage and make it look nice, it shouldn't matter what browser you're using (unless one has terrible layout issues for printed pages) as the proper better printed font rendering will be used in each case.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]xzxzzx
2007-06-13 06:33 pm UTC (link)
You might be right, and if you are, then there's no case where Safari would be better for media, other than possibly a projector.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]zootm
2007-06-13 06:39 pm UTC (link)
I'm definitely right in that case, the fonts would be all pixelated when you printed out websites if I wasn't (not to mention the fact you'd be wasting the potential of your printer many times over).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]xzxzzx
2007-06-18 04:33 pm UTC (link)
Well, I know that it's going to rerender for a printer (duh), but that doesn't mean Safari's going to use Windows' font renderer to do it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]zootm
2007-06-18 04:57 pm UTC (link)
It goes to the printer in an entirely different format; it will never use a screen font renderer. Regardless of what "renderer" it uses, it won't suffer from the limitations of either of the systems.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]xzxzzx
2007-06-13 04:12 pm UTC (link)
Bah. [i] tag. What a crock.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…