<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Not-so ClearType :: Apple FTW</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/06/15/not-so-cleartype-apple-ftw/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/06/15/not-so-cleartype-apple-ftw/</link>
	<description>News, opinion, and fresh thinking for web developers and designers. The official podcast of sitepoint.com.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:29:21 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Me</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/06/15/not-so-cleartype-apple-ftw/comment-page-1/#comment-659566</link>
		<dc:creator>Me</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:20:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1947#comment-659566</guid>
		<description>OMG why can&#039;t we get on-screen text to look like printed text already.  Cleartype helps but come on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OMG why can&#8217;t we get on-screen text to look like printed text already.  Cleartype helps but come on.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George Ou</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/06/15/not-so-cleartype-apple-ftw/comment-page-1/#comment-349279</link>
		<dc:creator>George Ou</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:17:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1947#comment-349279</guid>
		<description>&quot;Anyone care to weigh-in (while I don my flame proof suit)? Is it right to morph a font into something that’s close to what it should look like for the sake of readability? Or is typography a sacred art that shouldn’t be messed with?&quot;

Having a user setting would probably satisfy everyone, but I think we need to look at the application.  In my opinion which is based on pragmatism, readability and respecting the limitations of the pixel grid (until we have 200 DPI displays) should outweigh the sacred art of typography if we&#039;re talking about regular desktop applications like web browsers.  If we&#039;re talking about default settings for Desktop Publishing applications, they should default to respecting the typography.

But again, users should be permitted to override the settings and that would keep everyone happy.  The fact that Apple insists on prioritizing the sacred art of typography is unfortunate since most of us need readability for the vast majority of applications.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Anyone care to weigh-in (while I don my flame proof suit)? Is it right to morph a font into something that’s close to what it should look like for the sake of readability? Or is typography a sacred art that shouldn’t be messed with?&#8221;</p>
<p>Having a user setting would probably satisfy everyone, but I think we need to look at the application.  In my opinion which is based on pragmatism, readability and respecting the limitations of the pixel grid (until we have 200 DPI displays) should outweigh the sacred art of typography if we&#8217;re talking about regular desktop applications like web browsers.  If we&#8217;re talking about default settings for Desktop Publishing applications, they should default to respecting the typography.</p>
<p>But again, users should be permitted to override the settings and that would keep everyone happy.  The fact that Apple insists on prioritizing the sacred art of typography is unfortunate since most of us need readability for the vast majority of applications.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AlexW</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/06/15/not-so-cleartype-apple-ftw/comment-page-1/#comment-288179</link>
		<dc:creator>AlexW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:16:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1947#comment-288179</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;I find it humorious that this discussion is even occurring at this juncture in technology. Almost akin to which fonts look better on a dot matrix printer…really you’d rather not see dots at all…but if you are still on a crappy printer you talk about things like this in this way.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

That&#039;s a pretty long &#039;juncture&#039;. We&#039;ve had 72-96ppi monitors since the mid 80&#039;s and I haven&#039;t seen any plans for 300 ppi monitors any time soon.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I find it humorious that this discussion is even occurring at this juncture in technology. Almost akin to which fonts look better on a dot matrix printer…really you’d rather not see dots at all…but if you are still on a crappy printer you talk about things like this in this way.</p></blockquote>
<p>That&#8217;s a pretty long &#8216;juncture&#8217;. We&#8217;ve had 72-96ppi monitors since the mid 80&#8217;s and I haven&#8217;t seen any plans for 300 ppi monitors any time soon.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: josh</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/06/15/not-so-cleartype-apple-ftw/comment-page-1/#comment-287964</link>
		<dc:creator>josh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1947#comment-287964</guid>
		<description>I use both vista and tiger daily.

This is totally subjective dependent on the font chosen and on screen resolution.  It only even looks this close on blocky san-serif &quot;western&quot; fonts.

Once you get off cheap crappy low resolution/dpi monitors, the true letter forms look soooo much better then the distorted pixely garbage windows pushes out.  Pick any font other then arial/verdana/tahoma and you will be blown away at the difference.

At these low crappy resolutions, check out any font with serifs or other accents and tell me which looks better.  wow.  They look so much better when rendered correct to their intended hintings and forms like apple does. Check out small times new roman samples etc.  Only with boxy arial like fonts does the boxy distorted rendering looks like it is crisper....yeah ms!

Not to mention the western centric view here, Asian and Arabic fonts are almost unusable in the windows pixel distortion method, really ugly, but very clear and sharp when rendered true to letter form.  Completely usable and beautiful.

I find it humorious that this discussion is even occurring at this juncture in technology.  Almost akin to which fonts look better on a dot matrix printer...really you&#039;d rather not see dots at all...but if you are still on a crappy printer you talk about things like this in this way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I use both vista and tiger daily.</p>
<p>This is totally subjective dependent on the font chosen and on screen resolution.  It only even looks this close on blocky san-serif &#8220;western&#8221; fonts.</p>
<p>Once you get off cheap crappy low resolution/dpi monitors, the true letter forms look soooo much better then the distorted pixely garbage windows pushes out.  Pick any font other then arial/verdana/tahoma and you will be blown away at the difference.</p>
<p>At these low crappy resolutions, check out any font with serifs or other accents and tell me which looks better.  wow.  They look so much better when rendered correct to their intended hintings and forms like apple does. Check out small times new roman samples etc.  Only with boxy arial like fonts does the boxy distorted rendering looks like it is crisper&#8230;.yeah ms!</p>
<p>Not to mention the western centric view here, Asian and Arabic fonts are almost unusable in the windows pixel distortion method, really ugly, but very clear and sharp when rendered true to letter form.  Completely usable and beautiful.</p>
<p>I find it humorious that this discussion is even occurring at this juncture in technology.  Almost akin to which fonts look better on a dot matrix printer&#8230;really you&#8217;d rather not see dots at all&#8230;but if you are still on a crappy printer you talk about things like this in this way.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AndyH</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/06/15/not-so-cleartype-apple-ftw/comment-page-1/#comment-287602</link>
		<dc:creator>AndyH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:55:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1947#comment-287602</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;What we need now is not a fancy rendering engine. We need typeface designs that are aware and informed by the conditions under which they will be rendered, and adjust themselves accordingly. Sadly, with the way the “politics of tech” are going, this does not look likely. 

&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I agree with you there. A new family of fonts, specifically designed for the web, because in this day and age we can&#039;t just use an old font for something new and technological. It&#039;s like trying to use a car from the 1930&#039;s to win a formula one race.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>What we need now is not a fancy rendering engine. We need typeface designs that are aware and informed by the conditions under which they will be rendered, and adjust themselves accordingly. Sadly, with the way the “politics of tech” are going, this does not look likely. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>I agree with you there. A new family of fonts, specifically designed for the web, because in this day and age we can&#8217;t just use an old font for something new and technological. It&#8217;s like trying to use a car from the 1930&#8217;s to win a formula one race.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mihd</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/06/15/not-so-cleartype-apple-ftw/comment-page-1/#comment-286236</link>
		<dc:creator>mihd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:38:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1947#comment-286236</guid>
		<description>fairly pathetic!

would it not be easier to admit that safari on windows is substandard?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>fairly pathetic!</p>
<p>would it not be easier to admit that safari on windows is substandard?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Breton</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/06/15/not-so-cleartype-apple-ftw/comment-page-1/#comment-283823</link>
		<dc:creator>Breton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jun 2007 00:49:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1947#comment-283823</guid>
		<description>&quot;So basically you’re saying that someone’s arbitrary definition of physical beauty is more important than usability? &quot;

ARRRGGHHH. Is that what you honestly think design is about? Just physical beauty? If that was the case we&#039;d be called *web stylists*, not web designers. Clear visual communication should be concern number 1. 

With the juggling between blaming apple, or microsoft for butchering typefaces, or making type unreadable, I&#039;m surprised that nobody has thought to put some blame on the typeface designers. The fact is, our typical family of fonts on the web were either designed for a computer that renders small type without anti-aliasing, or simply designed for print with no concern for the screen at all. 

What we need now is not a fancy rendering engine. We need typeface designs that are aware and informed by the conditions under which they will be rendered, and adjust themselves accordingly. Sadly, with the way the &quot;politics of tech&quot; are going, this does not look likely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;So basically you’re saying that someone’s arbitrary definition of physical beauty is more important than usability? &#8220;</p>
<p>ARRRGGHHH. Is that what you honestly think design is about? Just physical beauty? If that was the case we&#8217;d be called *web stylists*, not web designers. Clear visual communication should be concern number 1. </p>
<p>With the juggling between blaming apple, or microsoft for butchering typefaces, or making type unreadable, I&#8217;m surprised that nobody has thought to put some blame on the typeface designers. The fact is, our typical family of fonts on the web were either designed for a computer that renders small type without anti-aliasing, or simply designed for print with no concern for the screen at all. </p>
<p>What we need now is not a fancy rendering engine. We need typeface designs that are aware and informed by the conditions under which they will be rendered, and adjust themselves accordingly. Sadly, with the way the &#8220;politics of tech&#8221; are going, this does not look likely.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: omnicity</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/06/15/not-so-cleartype-apple-ftw/comment-page-1/#comment-283394</link>
		<dc:creator>omnicity</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:15:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1947#comment-283394</guid>
		<description>Many of you seem to be missing the point here. Safari on Windows is meant to be IDENTICAL to Safari on OSX. How do you expect to have an identical appearance if you allow Windows to butcher fonts in a different way to how the Mac butchers its fonts (depending on your point of view)?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many of you seem to be missing the point here. Safari on Windows is meant to be IDENTICAL to Safari on OSX. How do you expect to have an identical appearance if you allow Windows to butcher fonts in a different way to how the Mac butchers its fonts (depending on your point of view)?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/06/15/not-so-cleartype-apple-ftw/comment-page-1/#comment-281884</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:25:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1947#comment-281884</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;“The very fact that FireFox is spell checking this form keeps me in their camp.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;Safari for Windows does this too. Edit &gt; Spelling &gt; Check Spelling While Typing&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Umm ... sorry, not in my Safari ... I turned it on but it does not work ... it won&#039;t even put a check mark beside it in the menu. Maybe it&#039;s a beta thing...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>&#8220;“The very fact that FireFox is spell checking this form keeps me in their camp.”</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Safari for Windows does this too. Edit &gt; Spelling &gt; Check Spelling While Typing&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Umm &#8230; sorry, not in my Safari &#8230; I turned it on but it does not work &#8230; it won&#8217;t even put a check mark beside it in the menu. Maybe it&#8217;s a beta thing&#8230;</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/06/15/not-so-cleartype-apple-ftw/comment-page-1/#comment-280084</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:27:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1947#comment-280084</guid>
		<description>&quot;The very fact that FireFox is spell checking this form keeps me in their camp.&quot;

Safari for Windows does this too.  Edit &gt; Spelling &gt; Check Spelling While Typing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The very fact that FireFox is spell checking this form keeps me in their camp.&#8221;</p>
<p>Safari for Windows does this too.  Edit &gt; Spelling &gt; Check Spelling While Typing.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
