Re: Fonts readability (was: Arial vs. Helvetica.)

2017-08-04 Thread Jude DaShiell
debian.org Subject: Re: Fonts readability (was: Arial vs. Helvetica.) Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 12:52:14 + (UTC) Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org Thanks for the reply! It looks like you're right--getting this changed sounds like paddling upstream against a fairly high curren

Re: Fonts readability (was: Arial vs. Helvetica.)

2017-08-04 Thread rhkramer
Thanks for the reply! It looks like you're right--getting this changed sounds like paddling upstream against a fairly high current! On Thursday, August 03, 2017 11:30:35 AM Nicolas George wrote: > Le sextidi 16 thermidor, an CCXXV, rhkra...@gmail.com a écrit : > > > Even worse, the anti-aliasing

Re: Arial vs. Helvetica.

2017-08-03 Thread Felix Miata
pe...@easthope.ca composed on 2017-08-02 06:26 (UTC-0700): > I want to specify a variable pitch font in a wiki. The font should be > widely available and acceptable to commonly used browsers. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arial explains, "It [Arial] was created > to be metrically identical t

Re: Fonts readability (was: Arial vs. Helvetica.)

2017-08-03 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Thu, 03 Aug 2017, Nicolas George wrote: > Another point where the bitmap fonts beat the vectorial fonts at tiny > sizes: you usually want your vectorial fonts anti-aliased, but at tiny > sizes it hurts readability. Even worse, the anti-aliasing is done wrong: > it is done without taking gamma co

Re: Fonts readability (was: Arial vs. Helvetica.)

2017-08-03 Thread Nicolas George
Le sextidi 16 thermidor, an CCXXV, rhkra...@gmail.com a écrit : > > Even worse, the anti-aliasing is done wrong: > > it is done without taking gamma correction into account. That means that > > when 50% intensity is wanted, it produces 22% intensity instead: > > black-on-white is too thick, white-o

Re: Fonts readability (was: Arial vs. Helvetica.)

2017-08-03 Thread rhkramer
On Thursday, August 03, 2017 08:23:37 AM Nicolas George wrote: > Even worse, the anti-aliasing is done wrong: > it is done without taking gamma correction into account. That means that > when 50% intensity is wanted, it produces 22% intensity instead: > black-on-white is too thick, white-on-black i

Fonts readability (was: Arial vs. Helvetica.)

2017-08-03 Thread Nicolas George
Le sextidi 16 thermidor, an CCXXV, Martin Read a écrit : > On a computer screen, I tend to find that sans or quasi-sans (e.g. fonts > where 'I' and 'l' have serifs but other letters mostly don't) fonts are more > comfortable to read (and, in particular, hold up better at small point > sizes). At s

Re: Arial vs. Helvetica.

2017-08-03 Thread Martin Read
On 02/08/17 16:34, Joe wrote: Incidentally, serifs were invented to make blocks of text easier to read, so Times or similar would be a better choice for paragraphs, with a sans-serif font more suited to bold headings. Newspaper sites (not surprisingly including The Times) use serif fonts. On a

Re: Arial vs. Helvetica.

2017-08-02 Thread Joe
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 06:26:13 -0700 pe...@easthope.ca wrote: > I want to specify a variable pitch font in a wiki. The font should be > widely available and acceptable to commonly used browsers. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arial explains, "It [Arial] was created > to be metrically identical

Re: Arial vs. Helvetica.

2017-08-02 Thread tomas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 06:26:13AM -0700, pe...@easthope.ca wrote: > I want to specify a variable pitch font in a wiki. The font should be > widely available and acceptable to commonly used browsers. See [1]. My take is: use first generic font fami

Arial vs. Helvetica.

2017-08-02 Thread peter
I want to specify a variable pitch font in a wiki. The font should be widely available and acceptable to commonly used browsers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arial explains, "It [Arial] was created to be metrically identical to the popular typeface Helvetica, with all character widths identic