On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 04:26:11AM EDT, Jochen Schulz wrote: > cga2000: [..]
> > Well .. I'm not sure where anyone ever got the idea that fonts > > should look blurred. I mean if I buy a book from amazon and I get a > > "blurred" copy.. I send it back right away. For stuff that you > > glance at it may be ok, but where reading is concerned .. I wouldn't > > do it. Your eyes would desperately (and automatically) try to focus > > thus causing eyestrain etc. > > Sure, but in my opinion fonts on my system don't look blurred. Ok, I > admit it. They are blurred, but very, very little. Only text in > italics doesn't look really good, but you don't want to read much of > that anyway (thanks slashdot for not using italics anymore!) and IIRC > this doesn't look good with non-AA fonts either. > > And if your printouts looked as blocky as the fonts in your moz.png, I > guess you would return it, too. I would be slightly annoyed at the publisher not showing more respect. But that's hardly relevant. Screen fonts are designed to make the most of the particular medium's limitations. > Comparing printed documents with screen fonts gets you nowhere, IMHO. Couldn't agree more..! And this is precisely why I all but stopped using proportional fonts on a computer screen. Not worth the trouble. I only find them useful for print previews. Aah .. but then, I am not "reading" .. just checking the formatting. > You wouldn't to read cyan text on black paper either. :) Hmm.. for reading code in bed, possibly..? :-) Thanks cga -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
