nor does anyone actually work with 5px lines of text.
And yet for some reason, font designers still bother to specify hints for those sizes, and OS programmers still bother to implement algorithms that make the text legible at those sizes. Hmm. Perhaps your generalization is wrong? Perhaps some people like to zoom out so a line of text is only a few pixels high and still be able to read it? Nah, that couldn't be it, everyone does exactly the same sort of work that you do and in exactly the same fashion.
Finally, consider this source provided by you that directly contradicts your point: http://zajac.ca/fonts/ -- observe the three way comparison between FontFocus, UNHINTED, and OS X rendering. Note that OS X and unhinted rendering are not even close to identical.
Actually, they're pretty close. OS X's rendering is wider and the letters have the same appearance at different places in the text, so it's clear that OS X is doing something, but it's not clear what that is: there doesn't seem to be any change within each character outline, only in the (fractional pixel) spacing between characters.
Actually, as Microsoft clearly shows, its honoring of the grid integrity is the intent of its ClearType algorithms.
Yes, of course it is.
That doesn't mean their algorithm consists of a simple "closest-fit grid snap" as you've repeatedly claimed, though: a naive algorithm like that would be unable to produce dramatic changes like the "N" illustrated here. Perhaps you're confused by their use of the term "grid-fit" to refer to the entire process of aligning and distorting the character outline before filling it in.
Logic flash: use a screen face for that.
So, use one font while you write a letter and another when you print it? Talk about loss of fidelity!
Microsoft's system does not produce text that is more legible at working sizes. I notice you presented nothing to substantiate that claim
That's because it's Microsoft's claim, not mine.
But technical accuracy is clearly and unequivocally in Apple's court.
If preserving the high-resolution character outlines is your sole measure of technical accuracy, then I suppose so.
No, subpixel rendering methodologies are the key difference in Microsoft and Apple anti-aliasing methods. The article you originally provided demonstrates rendering differences in the subpixel algorithms. The pixel-level rendering is almost identical.
Uh-huh. I suppose that's why the line of Mac text is 14 pixels wider than the line of Windows text? "Almost" indeed.
Provide them. Start with legibility studies.
I'll do even better: here's a side-by-side comparison. That's OS X's Helvetica on top, Windows 7's Arial on bottom, both at 5 pixels high. As you can see, OS X does indeed turn off subpixel rendering at that size, but it doesn't help. Notice the letters running together. Also notice the inability to distinguish "t" from "f", "i", or "l"; "e" from "u", "o", and "s"; and "h" from "b".
Next, a source that demonstrates that OS X "ignores" TrueType hints that Apple created in the first place. Then a source showing Microsoft offers higher technical fidelity in any aspect.
Admittedly, these are claims about Apple's renderer, not source code snippets from the renderer itself. Perhaps everyone is wrong. Do you have a better source demonstrating that Apple does respect the hints?
Then, show that the Microsoft rendering engine is anything more than a closest-fit grid snap.
A moment's thought should illustrate why a "closest-fit grid snap" would not produce anything looking remotely legible, but in case that isn't enough, here's Microsoft's overview of their rasterizer's operation, which includes: "Adjusting the outline description to the pixel grid (based on hinting information)."
If you're designing for print, you should never use an algorithm that shows different character placement and properties. If it's illegible at low resolutions on screen, increase the resolution or zoom in your document editor. You don't need on-screen legibility at tiny sizes if you're designing for print.
As I explained in my original post in this thread, that's fine for work such as graphic design where those details matter, but the average office worker writing a letter or spreadsheet cares more about reading the text than matching the printed page pixel-for-pixel. Newsflash: not everyone works in the same industry as you.
You've yet to demonstrate a single inaccuracy.
I've got to hand it to you: your powers of denial are impressive. Subpixel rendering? Snap-to-grid? Yes, you're batting a thousand, all right.
And again, this is only true if you apply subpixel rendering at these small sizes. Both Apple and Microsoft systems do not.
Subpixel rendering has nothing to do with it. Without subpixel rendering, you'll just get a monochrome blob instead of a fringey greyish blob. In order to get a legible character at very low resolutions, you have to distort the outline.
In other words, as I said the first time, it's a poor typeface selection.
Nope. If you're designing something that will eventually be printed (or otherwise rendered at high resolution), you ought to choose a typeface that will look good on paper. If that typeface then looks illegible at low resolutions on screen, you ought to use an algorithm that makes it legible (unless you absolutely need to see correct outlines and kerning while you're editing).
You seem to be suggesting that if your preferred print typeface looks bad on screen, you ought to compromise your selection of print fonts in order to make the text more legible on screen. You're not really the same AC who claimed to work in the print industry, are you?
No, I'm afraid that's exactly backwards. TrueType, including its hinting, was in fact developed by Apple. Hinting was unique to Apple systems long before subpixel rendering.
No, I'm afraid it's correct. TrueType's origins 20 years ago have no bearing on the fact that today, OS X ignores hints that Windows follows. Perhaps that's because Apple feels advances in monitor technology have made hinting less important, or perhaps it's just a stylistic choice to preserve the outlines - I don't know Apple's motivation.
But that has no bearing on what is objectively true: the typeface is better preserved on Apple systems. There's no objective analysis that makes Microsoft's system better in any way. That's simple fact.
No, sorry. In fact, since OS X ignores the hints that the font designer explicitly added to support low-resolution rendering, one could argue that Windows is truer to the designer's intent. A font is more than just a set of outlines.
It's not controversial in the least among anyone actually versed in the field.
The inaccurate statements you've made about the two renderers suggest that you aren't versed in the field.
Based on your comment history, you have a habit of getting into arguments here and presenting yourself as an authority, and yet never provide any substantive support.
If you'd like citations for any factual claims I've made, ask and I'll be happy to provide them. That's another one of my habits you may have noticed.
I find it absurd that anyone would justify a font rendering algorithm that doesn't actually render typefaces.
Well, arguably Microsoft's algorithm is truer to the font designer's intent, since it goes by the TrueType hints which were placed there by the font designer. Apple's algorithm produces small letters on screen that look more like the small letters on a printed page, but it does that by ignoring some of the information in the font (i.e. the instructions on how to distort the font for on-screen display).
If legibility is a concern, why not just substitute a different screen font instead of going at it half-assed.
Because then all small text would look the same. Going by the hints, there's at least some distinction between different typefaces - just not as much as at larger sizes.
No, I'm pretty sure that font display is measured by fidelity to the creator's intention and design
And I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Sorry. You might choose to measure font rendering that way--fidelity at any cost, even if it means reducing text to illegible blobs--but I don't, and evidently Microsoft doesn't either. In fact, I'd wager that most people don't.
The technical ins and outs of photo editing and display are all about fidelity; why would that not be the case with typeface rendering and display?
Because in many (if not most) cases, the primary purpose of rendering text is to make that text readable to the person sitting in front of the screen, and the formatting of that text is a secondary concern. In such cases, making "click here" distinguishable from "dick here" is more important than preserving the font designer's artistic vision.
So the question is, if Microsoft had bothered to put some effort into proper rendering, would there be any meaningful loss of legibility?
Empirically, the answer is obviously "no". As even that article points out, the determining factor is familiarity.
Again, this is only true if you ignore what happens at small sizes.
Why the article pretends that Microsoft's decision was anything other than lack of interest in fine-tuning is rather curious. [...] Pixel grid rendering is simply easier to implement
Nope, you've got it backwards: Microsoft's approach involves more fine-tuning. Apple's approach is easier to implement: just scale the outline to the appropriate size and fill it in.
Again, font rendering is measured by fidelity to the creator's intent. If the typeface is illegible because of blurring, then it's a poor typeface.
Nonsense. A font that looks fine when rendered in a 15-pixel-high line (on a 300 DPI printer) may look illegible when rendered unchanged in a 5-pixel-high line (on screen). That doesn't mean the typeface is poor, it just means it's too intricate for such a low resolution.
But Microsoft's decision to abandon the design in favor of a simplistic snap-to-grid renderer does nothing to improve legibility.
You seem to be confused about how that renderer works. It's far from "simplistic snap-to-grid": simply snapping the font's vertices to a pixel grid would produce garbage. What it actually does is apply the TrueType hints found in the font file.
The OS X font renderer ignores nearly all the hints, which is why the outline it renders at small sizes looks the same as the one it renders at large sizes: the hints are placed there by the font creator to tell renderers how to distort the outline at small sizes.
(Indeed, Microsoft's ClearType renderer pays less attention to the hints than their old one, because the greater resolution of subpixel rendering makes horizontal pixel-fitting less important.)
I happen to be of the print publication era, and I cannot stand the state of Microsoft and Linux font rendering. I'm happy to concede those with a personal and subjective preference for that system, but the reality is that it is objectively inferior in every way.
No, not in every way; only in the particular way you've chosen to focus on. Your personal, subjective preference is showing.
Same with Windows font rendering. It is plainly inferior in all objective measures of typeface fidelity.
Like I said, that's because fidelity isn't the primary goal. Windows goes out of its way to distort rendered text in order to align the character outlines with pixel boundaries.
You might as well claim that donuts are "plainly inferior in all objective measures of bagel quality": they crumble apart when you try to spread anything on them, you can't buy them pre-sliced, none of them come with raisins inside... and that's all fine, because donuts aren't trying to be bagels.
Subjective taste is subjective. Measurably fidelity is not, and handwaving about one being suited more to a given task than another doesn't make it so.
Once again, you're assuming fidelity is the only goal of a font renderer, but that's not the case.
When you take a font designed to be printed at 600 DPI and render it on a 96 DPI screen where each character is only a few pixels high, you face a tradeoff between fidelity and legibility. Apple decided to prioritize fidelity; Microsoft decided to prioritize legibility.
The link you provided does not support that argument. Legibility is not a significant issue.
Perhaps you missed this part: "Microsoft generally believes that the shape of each letter should be hammered into pixel boundaries to prevent blur and improve readability, even at the cost of not being true to the typeface."
I personally find that working in Windows-based terminals on LCD monitors is far more straining than Mac-based ones or CRT monitors--the text is too sharp and loses distinctiveness.
Fair enough. That's a matter of subjective taste.
Others may be accustomed to something else, and that's fine, but it's flat-out falsehood to claim that grid priority makes for better onscreen legibility.
At the point size in the article's example? Yes, you're right, both lines are legible.
But at smaller sizes, it's a plain statement of fact: distorting characters to keep the lines distinct does indeed make for more legible text than accurately rendering them into amorphous blobs.
Of course I'm dismissing them, because their evidentiary value is questionable. Web cam lights turning on unexpectedly? I've seen chat software do that - so we have no way of knowing if they left chat software running or if it was because of surveillance.
Well, we have no evidence that any of the students who complained about the webcam light coming on had used any chat software at all. Indeed, we have reports that the laptops were locked down in such a way that students were unable to use the webcams for their own purposes even if they wanted to.
Student disciplined because of a photo taken from his webcam? How do we know the school didn't get the picture from the buddy he sent it to. Or from someone's parent who discovered the photo on another kids laptop.
Again: we have no evidence that the student took the picture himself or sent it to anyone. Indeed, we have reports that suggest the student would have been unable to take the picture himself anyway.
I'll accept actual evidence when it appears, all we have to date is hearsay and assumptions.
Again: if reports from the people involved are insufficient, then what do you consider "evidence"? What would meet your threshold here?
And why are you so willing to make excuses for the school district based on nonexistent evidence we haven't heard, while at the same time you're dismissing everything we have heard?
Your argument boils down to "maybe all the students are lying and maybe a bunch of other stuff is going on that we haven't heard about". While that's technically possible, all we can do as Slashdotters is comment on the story as it's been reported.
This is a discussion forum, not a courtroom. We can't compel discovery or investigate the scene ourselves, and we aren't obligated to apply the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
You're terminally clueless.
And you're either trolling or on the school district's payroll.
This is one of many reasons why creative professionals prefer macs over PCs --- and I'm not saying this as platform evangelism -- for one, you'd be hard pressed to disagree that Mac OS X's font-rendering, kerning, and anti-aliasing abilities are far superior to those provided by Windows when presented with side-by-side examples.
Mac OS X's font rendering is different, but calling it "far superior" is simply platform evangelism.
OS X renders text so that the on-screen representation looks more like the printed representation, which is good for tasks like designing print advertisements (where you want to approximate the finished product as closely as possible). Windows takes liberties with the shape and spacing of on-screen text in order to line it up with the pixel grid, which is good for tasks like word processing and programming (where legibility on screen is more important). When you're used to Windows, Mac text looks blurry; when you're used to the Mac, I imagine Windows text looks thin and lanky.
There's a great deal of hype, hysteria, accusations, handwaving, and smokescreens - but no evidence.
Since you're dismissing out of hand the student reports (webcam lights turning on unexpectedly; a student being disciplined based on a photo taken from his webcam), I have to wonder what kind of "evidence" you think anyone can possibly provide. A photo or video of the webcam turning itself on? No, you'd probably just think it was doctored.
One possibility: Somebody accused the student in question of either doing or dealing drugs. School officials decided to investigate
...and thus shot themselves in the foot. Even if that's what happened, the school has absolutely no business investigating the sale or use of drugs off school grounds and outside school hours. If they suspect a crime, they can notify the police.
No unauthorized medication in school means just that, no unauthorized medication.
Yes, and it's a stupid rule. Not all medications are created equal.
Kids are using prescription and OTC drugs to get high, it's just a fact of high school life.
No one is using over-the-counter ibuprofen to get high. It's just a fact of biology.
Then how do you justify to Parent/Child B that they're getting suspended when Parent/Child A got a slap on the wrist.
Easy: all you have to do is realize that not all drugs are equal. "Your child was suspended because he was handing out crack. This other child got a slap on the wrist because she was only handing out ibuprofen."
And you were wrong. Zero tolerance for drugs is no less ridiculous than zero tolerance for "weapons". Like galadriel said, it's an excuse for administrators to unhook their brains instead of having to exercise any judgment.
Ibuprofen is as different from Adderall and crack as nail clippers are from switchblades and handguns. A student distributing ibuprofen to friends with headaches poses no more risk than a student distributing peanut butter sandwiches to friends who are hungry.
Right. I think it's fair to count free navigation as a feature in Android's column.
Also, even if you buy it for the iPhone, you're still subject to the platform restrictions like not being able to run it as a background app. So, for instance, you can't use navigation and listen to Last.fm at the same time.
(I almost always listen to streaming music while I drive, and although I rarely use navigation, I like that it can run at the same time, muting the music while it speaks.)
The iPhone has turn by turn navigation. Not by default, but there are several apps that provide it.
Pretty expensive, though, aren't they? Last I checked, you could either buy a navigation app for $90-$100 or subscribe for $10 a month. That's no better than buying a standalone GPS unit.
If the iPhone continues to do exactly what I need, even if it has fewer features and is more "locked down" than Android, then why would I switch?
I'm sure you wouldn't. Even switching to one of AT&T's upcoming Android phones would set you back a couple hundred bucks or so, so if you already have an iPhone and you're satisfied with it, there's no need to switch. But for new customers, I see little reason to prefer an iPhone over a competing smartphone.
Apple doesn't have the only app store for smartphones. Just the only one that places such bizarre restrictions on developers, and the only one that users can't get around by downloading apps from somewhere else (unless they want to jailbreak, which Apple contends is illegal).
My iPhone replaced a much-higher-specced, 5-year-old phone that did jack diddly shit when you got right down to it. [...] I've had my iPhone for 2 years, and it's invaluable to me.
Yes, the iPhone is better than most smartphones from early 2008 (and certainly better than the ones from 2003). But nothing you mentioned sets the iPhone apart from the other smartphones you can buy today: not the app store, not the music player, not the headphone connection, not the control schemes, not the software, not the screen, not the reliability, not even the looks. The only thing that sets it apart anymore is the cachet that comes from having a picture of an apple on it.
almost none compete with the simplicity, the ease of use, the consistency and reliability (software) and featureset of the iPhone.
I'm surprised you included "featureset" in there, because that's the one where the iPhone is objectively worse than its competition.
One could argue over whether or not the iPhone is really any easier to use than Android, for instance, but there's no denying that Android does more: turn by turn nagivation, widgets, and background apps are pretty major features that the iPhone is lacking. Now that Android has multitouch, does the iPhone even have any exclusive features?
I'm wondering basically if there are actual valid reasons for leaving the phone as apple sold it. Or more specifically, I'd like to hear some real-world reasons people have.
Risk pooling only makes sense if there is a small chance of a very high cost event happening.
My phone stopped working so I have to buy a new one doesn't cut it.
Someone rear ended me at a red light and now I have a $70,000 hospital bill does.
There is no absolute definition of "very high cost". You consider a $70,000 hospital bill to be such a high cost that you're willing to pay more today to avoid the risk of paying that much tomorrow. Well, some people might feel the same about a $600 phone replacement. Surely you're not claiming to know more about their finances than they do, right?
I would absolutely agree with your argument if the issue had been framed by airlines in terms of the consumption of resources rather than safety.
If you read the statement again, you'll see that they mention "safety and comfort". It's uncomfortable for the fat guy who has to squeeze into a seat that doesn't fit him, and perhaps more importantly, it's uncomfortable for the poor bastard who has to sit next to him. It's unsafe because a fat guy squeezed into a seat that doesn't fit him is going to have a hard time getting out quickly.
Furthermore, Southwest's policy is to refund the price of the second seat if the flight isn't full. In other words, you can consume more seats than you pay for as long as you're not denying a seat to anyone else.
If it were about charging for resources, then it may indeed be more fair on a pure economic view, but then they'd be hassled on the human rights front, which is an even worse can of worms. Men would perhaps rightly feel screwed because they are forced to pay significantly more for the same seat than a woman because they are heavier, and because that is something physical beyond their control. You see where that would go pretty fast: a PR nightmare.
That wouldn't happen, because weight isn't nearly as much of an issue as space. Notice that airlines don't weigh your carry-on luggage (they only measure its size), and policies like this one are phrased in terms of size rather than weight.
The Hummer analogy doesn't quite work when it comes to obese persons, because the underlying assumption is not established, namely, that people choose to be fat, or choose to consume more, which makes them fat.
Oh, give it up. What do you think is happening: mind control? You choose how much to eat, and how much to exercise.
There are, of course, circumstances that might push your choices in a certain direction. For instance, you might eat a poor diet because it's cheaper than a healthy one. But then you're still in the same situation as someone who drives an old, inefficient car because it's cheaper than a new, efficient car: should he get a discount on gas because of that? Should we make him prove his financial hardship, or should we give everyone with an inefficient car the discount because "the underlying assumption is not established" and he might have bought the car out of hardship? Or should we maybe just ask him to pay for the resources he consumes, regardless of why he's consuming them?
If a significant number of passengers don't fit the standard seat, should the airlines not logically increase the standard size? Otherwise, what's to prevent the airlines from making child-size seats the standard size and ask "normal" sized passengers to purchase two?
You just answered your own question: the number of passengers who don't fit the standard seat is pretty insignificant. I fly a few times a year, and I think I've only seen it once.
The thing preventing airlines from making child-sized seats the standard is customer demand. If one airline suddenly doubled the price for the vast majority of their customers, those customers would leave. The current policy works because the current standard size is fine -- not super-comfortable, but adequate -- for almost everyone who flies.
The trade-off with those merely adequate seats is that the airline can fit more passengers on the plane, which drives down the price of travel. If you make the seats bigger, fares will go up: the fuel savings from having one less passenger aren't enough to make up the lost revenue from selling one less ticket.
But I think it's interesting you said that a homophobe's discomfort is mental and easily overcome; so many Slashdotters made the exact same point about obese persons, namely that it is so easy to just change a physical aspect of yourself-- just lose weight.
So, I'm not quite sure how this widget works... does it beep every time someone updates so you know to look at it (if so, how utterly annoying), or was it just blind chance this guy happened to look at his phone at just the right time to see the sos on the widget.
There's no beep, so it was blind chance.
This isn't a story about how Facebook and Android are the future of emergency communications, it's just an interesting anecdote. In this particular case, Android played a key role in getting some people rescued. But you're right, in most situations it wouldn't have mattered.
Great, but just about any smartphone can do this, even most of the closed smartphone platforms, nothing special.
The part you quoted, yes, but not the part that kicked the whole thing off: he noticed someone's Facebook status update on his home screen widget. If he had to open an app to get Facebook updates, he wouldn't have seen it, because he had better things to do than browse Facebook.
I don't know about all the other smartphone platforms, but I'm pretty sure this is something the iPhone can't do. It doesn't have widgets; its home screen only shows app icons. You can get push notifications for certain events, but friends' status updates aren't among them, and you likely wouldn't want to get a message for every status update anyway.
For example, from your quote alone: "excessive" caloric intake? What is that? What's excessive, anything over 2,000 calories? What about athletes? What about persons with a higher than average metabolism?
2000 calories is a rough guideline that we all know must be adjusted for your specific situation. A simple Google search turns up several calorie intake calculators that produce a better estimate, but even those aren't completely accurate.
There is no precise number of calories that everyone must take in, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as excessive calorie intake. "Excessive" simply means more calories than you need to maintain your current weight, and you can determine what's excessive for you (given your current size and activity level) by keeping track of what you eat and charting your weight: if you're eating too much, your weight will trend upward.
Fat is assumed to be bad and wrong because it is allegedly unhealthy. And yet, do we really know if it - being fat - is unhealthy? No, we don't. We know that many fat people tend to have heart problems, or diabetes. But are those conditions related to their weight, or are they related to the underlying behaviours or traits which caused their larger-than-average weight? No, we don't.
Actually, we have a pretty good idea. Here's one study which found independent associations between obesity and diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol: independent as in it's predicted by obesity itself, not by the other factors that predict obesity (age, economic status, etc.).
These issues began to occur to me when I was 17 years old and playing at a World Cup athletic event. I was 5'8", fit as a horse, with a six pack, and about 180 pounds. I had my BMI done and, if I recall correctly, I was rated "scientifically" as morbidly obese. What a joke. It reminded me that the BMI, the 2,000 calorie diet and all the assumptions these things and their kin are based on are all bunk. They are tautological in the sense that they can only be used on the very populations for which they were defined to be used: "normal" people. And when you think about it, what use at all is that?
Yes, BMI is well-known to be inaccurate for bodybuilders and athletes, because muscle is denser than fat, and if whoever tested your BMI didn't tell you that, they weren't doing their job.
But BMI is still quite useful, because most people aren't bodybuilders or athletes. Most people whose BMI is rated as "overweight" really are overweight.
I agree that lifestyle choices may in fact be the cause of most instances of obesity. I don't seek to make excuses for poor lifestyle choices. What I do challenge is (a) that the choice to be fat is poor; and (b) that an excuse must be made for someone's lifestyle choice.
Judgments aside, the choice to be fat is a choice to consume more resources (in this case, seating space). Doesn't it make sense that they should pay extra for that? If you choose to drive a Hummer, you pay more to drive the same distance than someone who drives a Civic -- insisting that a passenger who needs two seats should fly for the same price as a passenger who only needs one is like insisting that Hummer owners should get 20 gallons of gas for the same price Civic owners pay for 10.
Doesn't it make more sense to ask airlines to make a few seats a little larger so that everyone can be comfortable?
There's a thought, but of course those seats would cost more (because they're more desirable, limited in number, and less profitable for the airline). Right now, fat passengers can get double the space for double the price. Maybe it'd make sense for the airline to install 150%-width seats for 150% the price. It's still basically the same situation, though: charging people more for consuming more space.
There'll always be someone who thinks that, as just one example, Joe Blow being gay intrudes into his life enjoyment because he is physically revolted when he sees Joe kiss his boyfriend in public.
Surely you aren't trying to equate the subjective, mental, easily overcome discomfort a homophobe feels upon seeing a gay couple kiss with the objective, physical, persistent discomfort a passenger feels from being denied half his seat and squished into the other half for the duration of his flight.
Slashdot Mirror
The image of the Mac's rendition is 168 pixels across, and the Windows version measures 164 pixels across, a difference of 4 pixels, or about 2%.
Now that I measure it again, I see you're right. My mistake.
Helvetica and Arial are not the same typeface
And the relevant difference in this case is... the designer of Helvetica wanted to produce illegible blobs at low resolutions?
But you do have a point there, so here's a fairer comparison: OS X (top) vs Windows 7 (bottom) rendering Arial at 5px. I'd hardly call that an improvement.
nor does anyone actually work with 5px lines of text.
And yet for some reason, font designers still bother to specify hints for those sizes, and OS programmers still bother to implement algorithms that make the text legible at those sizes. Hmm. Perhaps your generalization is wrong? Perhaps some people like to zoom out so a line of text is only a few pixels high and still be able to read it? Nah, that couldn't be it, everyone does exactly the same sort of work that you do and in exactly the same fashion.
Finally, consider this source provided by you that directly contradicts your point: http://zajac.ca/fonts/ -- observe the three way comparison between FontFocus, UNHINTED, and OS X rendering. Note that OS X and unhinted rendering are not even close to identical.
Actually, they're pretty close. OS X's rendering is wider and the letters have the same appearance at different places in the text, so it's clear that OS X is doing something, but it's not clear what that is: there doesn't seem to be any change within each character outline, only in the (fractional pixel) spacing between characters.
Actually, as Microsoft clearly shows, its honoring of the grid integrity is the intent of its ClearType algorithms.
Yes, of course it is.
That doesn't mean their algorithm consists of a simple "closest-fit grid snap" as you've repeatedly claimed, though: a naive algorithm like that would be unable to produce dramatic changes like the "N" illustrated here. Perhaps you're confused by their use of the term "grid-fit" to refer to the entire process of aligning and distorting the character outline before filling it in.
Logic flash: use a screen face for that.
So, use one font while you write a letter and another when you print it? Talk about loss of fidelity!
Microsoft's system does not produce text that is more legible at working sizes. I notice you presented nothing to substantiate that claim
That's because it's Microsoft's claim, not mine.
But technical accuracy is clearly and unequivocally in Apple's court.
If preserving the high-resolution character outlines is your sole measure of technical accuracy, then I suppose so.
No, subpixel rendering methodologies are the key difference in Microsoft and Apple anti-aliasing methods. The article you originally provided demonstrates rendering differences in the subpixel algorithms. The pixel-level rendering is almost identical.
Uh-huh. I suppose that's why the line of Mac text is 14 pixels wider than the line of Windows text? "Almost" indeed.
Provide them. Start with legibility studies.
I'll do even better: here's a side-by-side comparison. That's OS X's Helvetica on top, Windows 7's Arial on bottom, both at 5 pixels high. As you can see, OS X does indeed turn off subpixel rendering at that size, but it doesn't help. Notice the letters running together. Also notice the inability to distinguish "t" from "f", "i", or "l"; "e" from "u", "o", and "s"; and "h" from "b".
Next, a source that demonstrates that OS X "ignores" TrueType hints that Apple created in the first place. Then a source showing Microsoft offers higher technical fidelity in any aspect.
"Font hinting is the method preferred by Microsoft. Unhinted font is used on OS X and Linux."
"without any hints or grid-fitting but with subpixel accuracy (similar to rendering in Mac OS X)"
"I recently spoke with a renowned font designer, and he complained that Apple ignores the hinting he (and other designers) specifically puts into his fonts."
"Apple's rendering approach on Mac OS X ignores almost all the hints in a TrueType font"
Admittedly, these are claims about Apple's renderer, not source code snippets from the renderer itself. Perhaps everyone is wrong. Do you have a better source demonstrating that Apple does respect the hints?
Then, show that the Microsoft rendering engine is anything more than a closest-fit grid snap.
A moment's thought should illustrate why a "closest-fit grid snap" would not produce anything looking remotely legible, but in case that isn't enough, here's Microsoft's overview of their rasterizer's operation, which includes: "Adjusting the outline description to the pixel grid (based on hinting information)."
If you're designing for print, you should never use an algorithm that shows different character placement and properties. If it's illegible at low resolutions on screen, increase the resolution or zoom in your document editor. You don't need on-screen legibility at tiny sizes if you're designing for print.
As I explained in my original post in this thread, that's fine for work such as graphic design where those details matter, but the average office worker writing a letter or spreadsheet cares more about reading the text than matching the printed page pixel-for-pixel. Newsflash: not everyone works in the same industry as you.
You've yet to demonstrate a single inaccuracy.
I've got to hand it to you: your powers of denial are impressive. Subpixel rendering? Snap-to-grid? Yes, you're batting a thousand, all right.
And again, this is only true if you apply subpixel rendering at these small sizes. Both Apple and Microsoft systems do not.
Subpixel rendering has nothing to do with it. Without subpixel rendering, you'll just get a monochrome blob instead of a fringey greyish blob. In order to get a legible character at very low resolutions, you have to distort the outline.
In other words, as I said the first time, it's a poor typeface selection.
Nope. If you're designing something that will eventually be printed (or otherwise rendered at high resolution), you ought to choose a typeface that will look good on paper. If that typeface then looks illegible at low resolutions on screen, you ought to use an algorithm that makes it legible (unless you absolutely need to see correct outlines and kerning while you're editing).
You seem to be suggesting that if your preferred print typeface looks bad on screen, you ought to compromise your selection of print fonts in order to make the text more legible on screen. You're not really the same AC who claimed to work in the print industry, are you?
No, I'm afraid that's exactly backwards. TrueType, including its hinting, was in fact developed by Apple. Hinting was unique to Apple systems long before subpixel rendering.
No, I'm afraid it's correct. TrueType's origins 20 years ago have no bearing on the fact that today, OS X ignores hints that Windows follows. Perhaps that's because Apple feels advances in monitor technology have made hinting less important, or perhaps it's just a stylistic choice to preserve the outlines - I don't know Apple's motivation.
But that has no bearing on what is objectively true: the typeface is better preserved on Apple systems. There's no objective analysis that makes Microsoft's system better in any way. That's simple fact.
No, sorry. In fact, since OS X ignores the hints that the font designer explicitly added to support low-resolution rendering, one could argue that Windows is truer to the designer's intent. A font is more than just a set of outlines.
It's not controversial in the least among anyone actually versed in the field.
The inaccurate statements you've made about the two renderers suggest that you aren't versed in the field.
Based on your comment history, you have a habit of getting into arguments here and presenting yourself as an authority, and yet never provide any substantive support.
If you'd like citations for any factual claims I've made, ask and I'll be happy to provide them. That's another one of my habits you may have noticed.
I find it absurd that anyone would justify a font rendering algorithm that doesn't actually render typefaces.
Well, arguably Microsoft's algorithm is truer to the font designer's intent, since it goes by the TrueType hints which were placed there by the font designer. Apple's algorithm produces small letters on screen that look more like the small letters on a printed page, but it does that by ignoring some of the information in the font (i.e. the instructions on how to distort the font for on-screen display).
If legibility is a concern, why not just substitute a different screen font instead of going at it half-assed.
Because then all small text would look the same. Going by the hints, there's at least some distinction between different typefaces - just not as much as at larger sizes.
No, I'm pretty sure that font display is measured by fidelity to the creator's intention and design
And I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Sorry. You might choose to measure font rendering that way--fidelity at any cost, even if it means reducing text to illegible blobs--but I don't, and evidently Microsoft doesn't either. In fact, I'd wager that most people don't.
The technical ins and outs of photo editing and display are all about fidelity; why would that not be the case with typeface rendering and display?
Because in many (if not most) cases, the primary purpose of rendering text is to make that text readable to the person sitting in front of the screen, and the formatting of that text is a secondary concern. In such cases, making "click here" distinguishable from "dick here" is more important than preserving the font designer's artistic vision.
So the question is, if Microsoft had bothered to put some effort into proper rendering, would there be any meaningful loss of legibility?
Empirically, the answer is obviously "no". As even that article points out, the determining factor is familiarity.
Again, this is only true if you ignore what happens at small sizes.
Why the article pretends that Microsoft's decision was anything other than lack of interest in fine-tuning is rather curious. [...] Pixel grid rendering is simply easier to implement
Nope, you've got it backwards: Microsoft's approach involves more fine-tuning. Apple's approach is easier to implement: just scale the outline to the appropriate size and fill it in.
Again, font rendering is measured by fidelity to the creator's intent. If the typeface is illegible because of blurring, then it's a poor typeface.
Nonsense. A font that looks fine when rendered in a 15-pixel-high line (on a 300 DPI printer) may look illegible when rendered unchanged in a 5-pixel-high line (on screen). That doesn't mean the typeface is poor, it just means it's too intricate for such a low resolution.
But Microsoft's decision to abandon the design in favor of a simplistic snap-to-grid renderer does nothing to improve legibility.
You seem to be confused about how that renderer works. It's far from "simplistic snap-to-grid": simply snapping the font's vertices to a pixel grid would produce garbage. What it actually does is apply the TrueType hints found in the font file.
The OS X font renderer ignores nearly all the hints, which is why the outline it renders at small sizes looks the same as the one it renders at large sizes: the hints are placed there by the font creator to tell renderers how to distort the outline at small sizes.
(Indeed, Microsoft's ClearType renderer pays less attention to the hints than their old one, because the greater resolution of subpixel rendering makes horizontal pixel-fitting less important.)
I happen to be of the print publication era, and I cannot stand the state of Microsoft and Linux font rendering. I'm happy to concede those with a personal and subjective preference for that system, but the reality is that it is objectively inferior in every way.
No, not in every way; only in the particular way you've chosen to focus on. Your personal, subjective preference is showing.
Same with Windows font rendering. It is plainly inferior in all objective measures of typeface fidelity.
Like I said, that's because fidelity isn't the primary goal. Windows goes out of its way to distort rendered text in order to align the character outlines with pixel boundaries.
You might as well claim that donuts are "plainly inferior in all objective measures of bagel quality": they crumble apart when you try to spread anything on them, you can't buy them pre-sliced, none of them come with raisins inside... and that's all fine, because donuts aren't trying to be bagels.
Subjective taste is subjective. Measurably fidelity is not, and handwaving about one being suited more to a given task than another doesn't make it so.
Once again, you're assuming fidelity is the only goal of a font renderer, but that's not the case.
When you take a font designed to be printed at 600 DPI and render it on a 96 DPI screen where each character is only a few pixels high, you face a tradeoff between fidelity and legibility. Apple decided to prioritize fidelity; Microsoft decided to prioritize legibility.
The link you provided does not support that argument. Legibility is not a significant issue.
Perhaps you missed this part: "Microsoft generally believes that the shape of each letter should be hammered into pixel boundaries to prevent blur and improve readability, even at the cost of not being true to the typeface."
I personally find that working in Windows-based terminals on LCD monitors is far more straining than Mac-based ones or CRT monitors--the text is too sharp and loses distinctiveness.
Fair enough. That's a matter of subjective taste.
Others may be accustomed to something else, and that's fine, but it's flat-out falsehood to claim that grid priority makes for better onscreen legibility.
At the point size in the article's example? Yes, you're right, both lines are legible.
But at smaller sizes, it's a plain statement of fact: distorting characters to keep the lines distinct does indeed make for more legible text than accurately rendering them into amorphous blobs.
Of course I'm dismissing them, because their evidentiary value is questionable. Web cam lights turning on unexpectedly? I've seen chat software do that - so we have no way of knowing if they left chat software running or if it was because of surveillance.
Well, we have no evidence that any of the students who complained about the webcam light coming on had used any chat software at all. Indeed, we have reports that the laptops were locked down in such a way that students were unable to use the webcams for their own purposes even if they wanted to.
Student disciplined because of a photo taken from his webcam? How do we know the school didn't get the picture from the buddy he sent it to. Or from someone's parent who discovered the photo on another kids laptop.
Again: we have no evidence that the student took the picture himself or sent it to anyone. Indeed, we have reports that suggest the student would have been unable to take the picture himself anyway.
I'll accept actual evidence when it appears, all we have to date is hearsay and assumptions.
Again: if reports from the people involved are insufficient, then what do you consider "evidence"? What would meet your threshold here?
And why are you so willing to make excuses for the school district based on nonexistent evidence we haven't heard, while at the same time you're dismissing everything we have heard?
Your argument boils down to "maybe all the students are lying and maybe a bunch of other stuff is going on that we haven't heard about". While that's technically possible, all we can do as Slashdotters is comment on the story as it's been reported.
This is a discussion forum, not a courtroom. We can't compel discovery or investigate the scene ourselves, and we aren't obligated to apply the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
You're terminally clueless.
And you're either trolling or on the school district's payroll.
This is one of many reasons why creative professionals prefer macs over PCs --- and I'm not saying this as platform evangelism -- for one, you'd be hard pressed to disagree that Mac OS X's font-rendering, kerning, and anti-aliasing abilities are far superior to those provided by Windows when presented with side-by-side examples.
Mac OS X's font rendering is different , but calling it "far superior" is simply platform evangelism.
OS X renders text so that the on-screen representation looks more like the printed representation, which is good for tasks like designing print advertisements (where you want to approximate the finished product as closely as possible). Windows takes liberties with the shape and spacing of on-screen text in order to line it up with the pixel grid, which is good for tasks like word processing and programming (where legibility on screen is more important). When you're used to Windows, Mac text looks blurry; when you're used to the Mac, I imagine Windows text looks thin and lanky.
There's a great deal of hype, hysteria, accusations, handwaving, and smokescreens - but no evidence.
Since you're dismissing out of hand the student reports (webcam lights turning on unexpectedly; a student being disciplined based on a photo taken from his webcam), I have to wonder what kind of "evidence" you think anyone can possibly provide. A photo or video of the webcam turning itself on? No, you'd probably just think it was doctored.
One possibility: Somebody accused the student in question of either doing or dealing drugs. School officials decided to investigate
...and thus shot themselves in the foot. Even if that's what happened, the school has absolutely no business investigating the sale or use of drugs off school grounds and outside school hours. If they suspect a crime, they can notify the police.
No unauthorized medication in school means just that, no unauthorized medication.
Yes, and it's a stupid rule. Not all medications are created equal.
Kids are using prescription and OTC drugs to get high, it's just a fact of high school life.
No one is using over-the-counter ibuprofen to get high. It's just a fact of biology.
Then how do you justify to Parent/Child B that they're getting suspended when Parent/Child A got a slap on the wrist.
Easy: all you have to do is realize that not all drugs are equal. "Your child was suspended because he was handing out crack. This other child got a slap on the wrist because she was only handing out ibuprofen."
I said in terms of medication.
And you were wrong. Zero tolerance for drugs is no less ridiculous than zero tolerance for "weapons". Like galadriel said, it's an excuse for administrators to unhook their brains instead of having to exercise any judgment.
Ibuprofen is as different from Adderall and crack as nail clippers are from switchblades and handguns. A student distributing ibuprofen to friends with headaches poses no more risk than a student distributing peanut butter sandwiches to friends who are hungry.
Right. I think it's fair to count free navigation as a feature in Android's column.
Also, even if you buy it for the iPhone, you're still subject to the platform restrictions like not being able to run it as a background app. So, for instance, you can't use navigation and listen to Last.fm at the same time.
(I almost always listen to streaming music while I drive, and although I rarely use navigation, I like that it can run at the same time, muting the music while it speaks.)
The iPhone has turn by turn navigation. Not by default, but there are several apps that provide it.
Pretty expensive, though, aren't they? Last I checked, you could either buy a navigation app for $90-$100 or subscribe for $10 a month. That's no better than buying a standalone GPS unit.
If the iPhone continues to do exactly what I need, even if it has fewer features and is more "locked down" than Android, then why would I switch?
I'm sure you wouldn't. Even switching to one of AT&T's upcoming Android phones would set you back a couple hundred bucks or so, so if you already have an iPhone and you're satisfied with it, there's no need to switch. But for new customers, I see little reason to prefer an iPhone over a competing smartphone.
Two words: App Store.
Two words: locked down.
Apple doesn't have the only app store for smartphones. Just the only one that places such bizarre restrictions on developers, and the only one that users can't get around by downloading apps from somewhere else (unless they want to jailbreak, which Apple contends is illegal).
My iPhone replaced a much-higher-specced, 5-year-old phone that did jack diddly shit when you got right down to it. [...] I've had my iPhone for 2 years, and it's invaluable to me.
Yes, the iPhone is better than most smartphones from early 2008 (and certainly better than the ones from 2003). But nothing you mentioned sets the iPhone apart from the other smartphones you can buy today: not the app store, not the music player, not the headphone connection, not the control schemes, not the software, not the screen, not the reliability, not even the looks. The only thing that sets it apart anymore is the cachet that comes from having a picture of an apple on it.
almost none compete with the simplicity, the ease of use, the consistency and reliability (software) and featureset of the iPhone.
I'm surprised you included "featureset" in there, because that's the one where the iPhone is objectively worse than its competition.
One could argue over whether or not the iPhone is really any easier to use than Android, for instance, but there's no denying that Android does more: turn by turn nagivation, widgets, and background apps are pretty major features that the iPhone is lacking. Now that Android has multitouch, does the iPhone even have any exclusive features?
I'm wondering basically if there are actual valid reasons for leaving the phone as apple sold it.
Or more specifically, I'd like to hear some real-world reasons people have.
Well, according to Apple, jailbreaking is illegal.
I agree with this. The status symbol argument only comes from people that simply can not admit that Apple makes a good product.
And this argument only comes from people that simply cannot admit that competing phones are every bit as good, if not better.
I own an iPone because it is far and away the very best smart phone on the market. There is still no competition.
Case in point.
You are just trying to fry the insides of the phone right? So take the battery out before you put the phone in the microwave.
Won't that void the warranty all by itself? We're talking about iPhones, remember.
Risk pooling only makes sense if there is a small chance of a very high cost event happening.
My phone stopped working so I have to buy a new one doesn't cut it.
Someone rear ended me at a red light and now I have a $70,000 hospital bill does.
There is no absolute definition of "very high cost". You consider a $70,000 hospital bill to be such a high cost that you're willing to pay more today to avoid the risk of paying that much tomorrow. Well, some people might feel the same about a $600 phone replacement. Surely you're not claiming to know more about their finances than they do, right?
I would absolutely agree with your argument if the issue had been framed by airlines in terms of the consumption of resources rather than safety.
If you read the statement again, you'll see that they mention "safety and comfort". It's uncomfortable for the fat guy who has to squeeze into a seat that doesn't fit him, and perhaps more importantly, it's uncomfortable for the poor bastard who has to sit next to him. It's unsafe because a fat guy squeezed into a seat that doesn't fit him is going to have a hard time getting out quickly.
Furthermore, Southwest's policy is to refund the price of the second seat if the flight isn't full. In other words, you can consume more seats than you pay for as long as you're not denying a seat to anyone else.
If it were about charging for resources, then it may indeed be more fair on a pure economic view, but then they'd be hassled on the human rights front, which is an even worse can of worms. Men would perhaps rightly feel screwed because they are forced to pay significantly more for the same seat than a woman because they are heavier, and because that is something physical beyond their control. You see where that would go pretty fast: a PR nightmare.
That wouldn't happen, because weight isn't nearly as much of an issue as space. Notice that airlines don't weigh your carry-on luggage (they only measure its size), and policies like this one are phrased in terms of size rather than weight.
The Hummer analogy doesn't quite work when it comes to obese persons, because the underlying assumption is not established, namely, that people choose to be fat, or choose to consume more, which makes them fat.
Oh, give it up. What do you think is happening: mind control? You choose how much to eat, and how much to exercise.
There are, of course, circumstances that might push your choices in a certain direction. For instance, you might eat a poor diet because it's cheaper than a healthy one. But then you're still in the same situation as someone who drives an old, inefficient car because it's cheaper than a new, efficient car: should he get a discount on gas because of that? Should we make him prove his financial hardship, or should we give everyone with an inefficient car the discount because "the underlying assumption is not established" and he might have bought the car out of hardship? Or should we maybe just ask him to pay for the resources he consumes, regardless of why he's consuming them?
If a significant number of passengers don't fit the standard seat, should the airlines not logically increase the standard size? Otherwise, what's to prevent the airlines from making child-size seats the standard size and ask "normal" sized passengers to purchase two?
You just answered your own question: the number of passengers who don't fit the standard seat is pretty insignificant. I fly a few times a year, and I think I've only seen it once.
The thing preventing airlines from making child-sized seats the standard is customer demand. If one airline suddenly doubled the price for the vast majority of their customers, those customers would leave. The current policy works because the current standard size is fine -- not super-comfortable, but adequate -- for almost everyone who flies.
The trade-off with those merely adequate seats is that the airline can fit more passengers on the plane, which drives down the price of travel. If you make the seats bigger, fares will go up: the fuel savings from having one less passenger aren't enough to make up the lost revenue from selling one less ticket.
But I think it's interesting you said that a homophobe's discomfort is mental and easily overcome; so many Slashdotters made the exact same point about obese persons, namely that it is so easy to just change a physical aspect of yourself-- just lose weight.
Losing weight isn't easy, but it's possible wi
So, I'm not quite sure how this widget works... does it beep every time someone updates so you know to look at it (if so, how utterly annoying), or was it just blind chance this guy happened to look at his phone at just the right time to see the sos on the widget.
There's no beep, so it was blind chance.
This isn't a story about how Facebook and Android are the future of emergency communications, it's just an interesting anecdote. In this particular case, Android played a key role in getting some people rescued. But you're right, in most situations it wouldn't have mattered.
Great, but just about any smartphone can do this, even most of the closed smartphone platforms, nothing special.
The part you quoted, yes, but not the part that kicked the whole thing off: he noticed someone's Facebook status update on his home screen widget. If he had to open an app to get Facebook updates, he wouldn't have seen it, because he had better things to do than browse Facebook.
I don't know about all the other smartphone platforms, but I'm pretty sure this is something the iPhone can't do. It doesn't have widgets; its home screen only shows app icons. You can get push notifications for certain events, but friends' status updates aren't among them, and you likely wouldn't want to get a message for every status update anyway.
For example, from your quote alone: "excessive" caloric intake? What is that? What's excessive, anything over 2,000 calories? What about athletes? What about persons with a higher than average metabolism?
2000 calories is a rough guideline that we all know must be adjusted for your specific situation. A simple Google search turns up several calorie intake calculators that produce a better estimate, but even those aren't completely accurate.
There is no precise number of calories that everyone must take in, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as excessive calorie intake. "Excessive" simply means more calories than you need to maintain your current weight, and you can determine what's excessive for you (given your current size and activity level) by keeping track of what you eat and charting your weight: if you're eating too much, your weight will trend upward.
Fat is assumed to be bad and wrong because it is allegedly unhealthy. And yet, do we really know if it - being fat - is unhealthy? No, we don't. We know that many fat people tend to have heart problems, or diabetes. But are those conditions related to their weight, or are they related to the underlying behaviours or traits which caused their larger-than-average weight? No, we don't.
Actually, we have a pretty good idea. Here's one study which found independent associations between obesity and diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol: independent as in it's predicted by obesity itself, not by the other factors that predict obesity (age, economic status, etc.).
These issues began to occur to me when I was 17 years old and playing at a World Cup athletic event. I was 5'8", fit as a horse, with a six pack, and about 180 pounds. I had my BMI done and, if I recall correctly, I was rated "scientifically" as morbidly obese. What a joke. It reminded me that the BMI, the 2,000 calorie diet and all the assumptions these things and their kin are based on are all bunk. They are tautological in the sense that they can only be used on the very populations for which they were defined to be used: "normal" people. And when you think about it, what use at all is that?
Yes, BMI is well-known to be inaccurate for bodybuilders and athletes, because muscle is denser than fat, and if whoever tested your BMI didn't tell you that, they weren't doing their job.
But BMI is still quite useful, because most people aren't bodybuilders or athletes. Most people whose BMI is rated as "overweight" really are overweight.
I agree that lifestyle choices may in fact be the cause of most instances of obesity. I don't seek to make excuses for poor lifestyle choices. What I do challenge is (a) that the choice to be fat is poor; and (b) that an excuse must be made for someone's lifestyle choice.
Judgments aside, the choice to be fat is a choice to consume more resources (in this case, seating space). Doesn't it make sense that they should pay extra for that? If you choose to drive a Hummer, you pay more to drive the same distance than someone who drives a Civic -- insisting that a passenger who needs two seats should fly for the same price as a passenger who only needs one is like insisting that Hummer owners should get 20 gallons of gas for the same price Civic owners pay for 10.
Doesn't it make more sense to ask airlines to make a few seats a little larger so that everyone can be comfortable?
There's a thought, but of course those seats would cost more (because they're more desirable, limited in number, and less profitable for the airline). Right now, fat passengers can get double the space for double the price. Maybe it'd make sense for the airline to install 150%-width seats for 150% the price. It's still basically the same situation, though: charging people more for consuming more space.
There'll always be someone who thinks that, as just one example, Joe Blow being gay intrudes into his life enjoyment because he is physically revolted when he sees Joe kiss his boyfriend in public.
Surely you aren't trying to equate the subjective, mental, easily overcome discomfort a homophobe feels upon seeing a gay couple kiss with the objective, physical, persistent discomfort a passenger feels from being denied half his seat and squished into the other half for the duration of his flight.