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
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
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
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
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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
