[bgmccollum]

this is in referece to something dave hyatt said about safari anti-aliasing bitmap fonts like geneva and monaco being a good thing...

http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/hyatt/

which was in reference to this

http://daringfireball.net/2003/03/antialiasing.html


garamond is an old world font. it is very complex in its curves etc. it is pre-computer, pre-true-type and pre-anti-aliasing, this font would be hard to display at small sizes with solid on/off pixels. ok, I have defined that.

geneva monico etc fonts are "newer" typefaces, meaning they were born on the computer in an era of pre-true-type and pre-anti-aliasing. the designer of the font created each character through drawing with solid on or off pixels. the reason the fonts work so well aliased is because they were designed in an era before anti-aliasing and to be legible at small sizes on screen.

now, I wouldn't say these bitmap fonts are the most beautiful thing in the world. most are ugly. but they serve a purpose. to display type at small point sizes and still be legible on screen. you have to remember, these are screen fonts. they were never meant to be printed. they are used in programs to display text.

moving along...a little MORE font history...

here comes postscript and vector fonts. again, this is still before antialiasing. the way it used to work, and still does in os 9 if you don’t have ATM installed, is this. higher quality font come with several files attached to the suitcase. there are the screen fonts at various standard sizes that are bitmap, and then there is the printer font, which is vector. say you open up (back in the day) aldus pagemaker. you lay down a block of text, choose times, and type some text. lets say you choose 12pt times. what you see on screen is the bitmap version of 12pt times. if you look in the times suitcase, there is a file called times 12pt which is what is being used on screen. if you used you changed the font size to say 14pt, the screen would physically switch fonts to times 14pt. now when you go to print to a laser printer, the bitmap version of times isnt used, the printer file times is used, which is vector, and the printer correctly renders times with all it smooth curves and glory. remember back in the day you only had a few choices for font sizes? that is because particular fonts were only made with certain sizes mind. times had 8 9 10 12 14 18 and 24. so, in the suitcase you would have a times file for each size, in addition to a vector file for the printer. this poses a problem. while you may be able to stretch times 24pt to say, 72pt, it was pixelated really bad on screen. it still printed fine on a postscript printer, but on screen, times 72 just looked but ugly. fine for most people, not fine for designers.

so evolution occours....truetype, t1 and other various vector fonts for screen use are developed. these fonts are essntually the same as the printer fonts, but they are able to display on screen. we are still pre anti-aliasing on screen. here is the problem though. while these fonts lets you display a typeface at any given size, like 27pts, they are still being converted to a bitmap based grid of on and off pixels. this works great for larger point sizes like 28pt and up. but when you scale a vector font down to say 9 and 10pt, its hard to accurately represent characters at such a small size cause of the nature of curves vs. pixels. the computer just does the math and spits pixels out. take a look a serif font at 144pt. see how the curves are subtle and sweeping? well, when you scale it down, the computer can get confused and push pixels out of whack in the vector to pixel conversion. essentially, a T had a vertical stroke, and horz stroke, and some serifs on the ends. the bitmap version was designed to work at certain sizes and represent this accurately at small sizes. you cant trust the computer to display the vector version at small sizes, so the hand drawn pixel bitmap version are swapped out and used at small sizes. keeps it ledgible on screen. remember, this is all on screen. it still uses the vector version when you print. along this time classic fonts like garmond and caslon were being dug up from old samples, and recreated in vector format for print use. garamond has never need a bitmap version in its life. trying to recreate it at small sizes with just on and off pixel is just down right impossible. it would look like times or something, which is butt ugly. so, displaying garamond on screen would only look good at larger pt sizes.

the advent of anti-aliasing comes. contrary to what most people believe, the purpose of anti-aliasing fonts on screen is not to make it easier on the eyes to read. small fonts are easier to read when they are high contrast. pure black and white is the most legible combination and why mono, while not the nicest looking font, at 9 pt is highly legible. it serves a purpose, just as a toilet does. the screen as we know is pixel based. vector fonts do not adhere to this display type. anti aliasing simulates what I like to call off base pixels. put a 50% grey pixel next to a black pixel and it looks like 1.5 pixels wide. now we know this is impossible to have 1.5 pixel widths. since curves don’t fall on exact pixels, varying levels of grey are used to simulate off base pixels creating a smoother on screen display. the original purpose of antialiasing was to increase the resolution and clarity of complex vector fonts on screen. anti-aliasing allows us to even more closely represent the smooth curves and shapes in truetype and t1 fonts on screen FOR DESIGNERS (me) and to more accurately display small pt size vector fonts. while 9pt garamond antialiased is not as perfect as its printed counterpart, its servers it purpose to simulate it as close as possible on screen. in OS 9, to enable antaliasing, designers used ATM. vector screen fonts are antialiased on screen, while bitmap old school fonts are not, geneva and monoco being 2 of these. the reason geneva and monoco are not antialiased by ATM is because they are not vector and were never designed to be antialiased. if your not going to use geneva to print, why make a vector version, and why anti alias it....

this is where the trouble starts. geneva and other bitmap fonts were altered. since people were using these fonts to print with, for which they were never designed to be used for, vector versions started to show up ALONG SIDE the bitmap version. now, most people wouldn’t know the difference, but it will create a problem in the future. so, you have a vector version of geneva now, and a bitmap version of geneva. lets say you didn’t have ATM or some other antialiasing extension. you select geneva, you set it to 17pt, type something, and the screen vector version is used. the fonts scales semi well on screen. you print it. well, instead of upscaling to 17pt, the printer used the vector version and everything is just dandy. all is good. so you think. Now, say you have ATM installed, which most average joes don’t have or don’t even know what it is. I pick geneva and set it to 17pt. the vector screen version is used, and it is rendered in its anti-aliased version. remember, geneva is not a font you generally print with. now, I switch to say 10pt. well, ATM is smart and see a bitmap version of geneva 10, which it knows is clearer than the vector version at 10pt and displays it without antialiasing, as it should. clarity is the key when viewing on screen.

[bgmccollum]

so, im happy, your happy, we are all in our os 9 happy days. then all hell breaks loose...

here comes OS X...this is a multi rooted problem that comes from several different angles that has created a really bad situation. OS X is not the problem, but rather, the way in which the problem reveals itself.

Part 1 of the problem: I blame this on stupid people not knowing about fonts in general. Trying to use bitmap fonts at sizes they were never meant to be used at, and using these fonts for printing. What has happened is there are now vector versions of classic bitmap fonts to appease these people. They see it as evolution of computers, font people see it as de-evolution of a font that is a tool.

Part 2 of the problem: Again, I blame this on stupid people. OS X gives anti-aliasing to the masses. While this is a plus, and I do enjoy it, it creates a problem. Everything in OS X is nice and smooth. From the fonts to the icons. People see anti-aliasing as being cool. It is cool, when done correctly and when appropriate. So, you have people that see geneva 10pt in safari being anti-aliased and think it looks great (Sorry Hyatt, you are wrong. You obviously know nothing about fonts if you think geneva should be aliased. Geneva is a screen font that predates anti-aliasing and is displayed correctly aliased). They have hyped themselves all to hell and are stuck on this whole "anti-alias everything" kick when they themselves know absolutely NOTHING about fonts. Its like all those rice boys that think their front wheel drive car will go faster and have better traction because of the huge spoiler on the back. Wrong tool for the situation at hand.

Part 3 of the problem: The web standard is now 96dpi and most browsers support this. Fonts are based on the scale of 72dpi. 72dpi = 1 inch. So, we have a conflict of scale now.

Part 4 of the problem: The correct font display method uses a true type version if the bitmap version is not available at a certain point size. this is the intended method of operation, as bitmaps at certain sizes are more legible then their vector counterparts at the same size. From what I gather, CoreGraphics and QuickDraw in OS X are somewhat erratic in how they displays fonts. I believe this partially ties into problem 1, and certain programmers either bypass the bitmap fonts when available, or the calls bypass them. This is illustrated below.

I have created a test html file with styles defining geneva 8pt - 12pt and monaco 8pt - 12pt.

I checked this file in 5 different browsers to see which sizes of each font are anti-aliased. This has also brought to my attention a problem with font sizes as well.

I also checked these fonts in text edit for reference.

Here are the results:

IE: All fonts are anti-aliased
Netscape 7: Geneva & Monaco 8pt Aliased, All others anti-aliased
Mozilla: Geneva & Monaco 8pt & 9pt Aliased, All others anti-aliased
Camino: Geneva & Monaco 8pt Aliased, All others anti-aliased
Safari: All fonts are anti-aliased

Text Edit: Geneva and Monaco 8pt Aliased, Monaco 9pt and 10pt aliased. All others anti-aliased.

There seems to be a lot of problems throughout the systems with fonts. The display errors with all the browsers seems to be because of problem 3.

8pt geneva and monaco should be anti-aliased.
9pt geneva and monaco should be aliased.
10pt geneva and monaco should be aliased.
11pt geneva and monaco should be anti-aliased.
12pt geneva and monaco should be aliased.

none of the browsers display this correctly.

Mozilla seems to be 1pt size small in its font rendering. 8pt geneva is actually 9pt geneva. 10pt monaco is actually 9pt monaco etc...

Netscape, Camino and Safari seem to be 2pt sizes off. 8pt Geneva is actually 10pt geneva etc...

IE is I believe 3 point sizes off.

The problem gets worse as the type gets larger. It seems that each subsequent point size its actually getting larger exponentially. If monaco and geneva 12pt were actually that big, id type my thesis papers in them all the time.

Now take a look at text edit. The sizes are correct, but I am still puzzled. Geneva 8 should be antialiased. Geneva 9-10 should be aliased. monaco 8 should be antialiased. MONACO 9-10 ARE ALIASED!!! What is going on here.

Obviously there are serious problems in the font world in OSX. Font sizes are not a relative scale. They mean something.

Can someone care to explain why this is happening?

In the end, I think the solution could be simple.

Have a system wide option that has 4 options.

1. Anti-alias all fonts.
2. Anti-alias all fonts except those with bitmap version for certain sizes.
3. Anti-alias all fonts except those that are under a said point size.
4. Work like ATM, give me platinum back, give me pop up windows back, give me list view in dialogs back, give me system wide labels back, give me my apple menu back, remove the dock, remove all drop shadow, and remove column view.

option 4 would make apple a hefty sum of money cause all the designers still using os 9 wouldnt have a reason to not upgrade to OS X. funny, but true.

[codywalton]

that makes my head hurt.

[BuonRotto]

Not having read all of that (lazy, at work), I ask the question: why use a font like Geneva at all? Geneva was a bitmap rip-off of Helvetica, and Helvetica Neue is the newfangled anti-aliased, truetype whatnot font update to Helvetica. Why use Geneva in OS X at all when it was meant only as a cheap alternative for the Mac OS not to pay licensing for Helvetica and for use on itsy-bitsy low-res screens back in 1984? It's a relic as far as I can telll, and doesn't have a place in OS X save maybe nostalgia.

The situation with a font like Garamond is different. Ideally, computers are striving to reproduce fonts like this as well they they were done mechanically for the computer. So I think it remains the burden of font technology and display technology to attain the level of detail, elegance and polish a font like Garamond requires.

[bgmccollum]

Originally posted by BuonRotto:
Not having read all of that (lazy, at work), I ask the question: why use a font like Geneva at all? Geneva was a bitmap rip-off of Helvetica, and Helvetica Neue is the newfangled anti-aliased, truetype whatnot font update to Helvetica. Why use Geneva in OS X at all when it was meant only as a cheap alternative for the Mac OS not to pay licensing for Helvetica and for use on itsy-bitsy low-res screens back in 1984? It's a relic as far as I can telll, and doesn't have a place in OS X save maybe nostalgia.

The situation with a font like Garamond is different. Ideally, computers are striving to reproduce fonts like this as well they they were done mechanically for the computer. So I think it remains the burden of font technology and display technology to attain the level of detail, elegance and polish a font like Garamond requires.

the use of said bitmap fonts inside a browser, geneva, monoco etc, look better at 9/10pt aliased. they are crisper and more legible. hyatt thinks otherwise.

[gorickey]

Those are the longest posts in history...CONGRATS!

[bgmccollum]

Originally posted by gorickey:
Those are the longest posts in history...CONGRATS!

i had to split the whole essay into 2 posts. there is a limit on the number of characters allowed to post.

[diamondsw]

Originally posted by bgmccollum:
the use of said bitmap fonts inside a browser, geneva, monoco etc, look better at 9/10pt aliased. they are crisper and more legible. hyatt thinks otherwise.

And many others agree. I find antialiased type easier to read everywhere except code, and that's just because of the large number of symbols and such. Things like ` and ' being very different things.

[wataru]

Interesting posts.

But blaming this on stupid people won't help much. Most people don't give a rat's ass about stuff like that. Try explaining the difference between vectors and bitmaps to your grandma. Hell, try explaining what a font is to your grandma. Doesn't work too well, does it?

[JB72]

Its like all those rice boys that think their front wheel drive car will go faster and have better traction because of the huge spoiler on the back. Wrong tool for the situation at hand.

lol

[dfiler]

Great posts! Its nice that Mac users are still completely obsessed with the quality of their computing experience.

While I concur with most of your analysis, I would like to add a few points.

It seems as if this argument is analyzing fonts soley from a designer's perspective. To be complete, perhaps we should consider how font architecture effects users and readers, not just designers. Designers are generally quite knowledgable about font technologies. Possesion of this knowledge is neccessary in order for them to produce quality results. However, increased awareness doesn't dictate that font architectures should be tailored to designers' needs.

Though computer users aren't typically as knowledgable about fonts they are greatly effected by the underlying technology. Font technologies should be designed to produce the best possible experience for computer users and readers of printed material. This goal can be in direct opposition to design criteria of graphic designers.

Designers frequently want to hard code layout and font metrics yet users frequently want control over these settings.

I am curious about your take on this last point. Where do user-specified display-preferences fit into your analysis?

[Arkham_c]

People just need to stop trying to print stuff -- that would simplify everything

I say this in jest of course. but I rarely print things myself. I have an HP laserjet 6mp, and I am still on the first toner cartridge after about 5 years.

[Jan Van Boghout]

I can't stand these forums in aliased Geneva... It's horrible!

[cowerd]

Helvetica, and Helvetica Neue is the newfangled anti-aliased, truetype whatnot font update to Helvetica.

Helvetica Neue is not a newfangled truetype update to Helvetica. Helvetica Neue is a proper redrawing of Helvetica as when Helvetica was first designed it was a limited font family (hel regular, hel italic, hel bold and hel bold italic), and was then over time extended to different weights and widths. Helvetica Neue is a redrawn version of Helvetica with more regularity in the curves and counters between differing weights and widths. Not as interesting as the original Helvetica, but much better if you are using other weights and widths (i work for someone who studied under swiss graphic designers hence the abnormal interest in helvetica).

Font rendering inconsistencies in a browser are inconsequential, unless there are significant errors. I notice that you didn't mention line length issues with anti-aliased text, and that seems to have the biggest effect on the appearance of webpages. Pixel level control in websites is impossible and not user friendly. A couple of pixels here and there is nothing compared to a fubared browser that fuxors css.

[el_humpo]

Very interesting post! I think one thing you left out is consistency in rendering.

Personally, I like antialiasing. If I looked at one screen where everything was antialiased, and I looked at another screen that was entirely aliased, I'd pick the fully antialiased one every time. But I find the appearance of aliased fonts on an otherwised smoothed screen (especially when mixed on the same web page or text document) jarring. I would rather have everything antialiased or nothing at all, not a mix between the two.

Also, I know designers always want to exactly control what their output looks like. But on web pages, it's just not possible. The user will always have the final say if they choose to employ their own custom stylesheets. Or maybe they don't have the font you want installed.

That's why inconsistent font sizes between browsers isn't really a big deal. It's only a problem if the fonts on your page appear too small for someone to read... and that's why most browsers have a minimum font size setting

[bgmccollum]

I think it comes down to being a responsible web designer and knowing your audience. If you know that the majority of the people that come to your site use a mac, you can almost guarantee that they have geneva installed. And since geneva has hostorically always reverted to the aliased version at certain point sizes, you could intentionally decide to use that font at that size because you wanted it aliased.

The problem is safari bypasses the normal convention , as hyatt stated due to speed increases in font rendering, and opts to antialias everything. It comes down to knowing what fonts antialias and which dont at certain point sizes.

If you dont like the way geneva renders, then dont use it on YOUR pages. I, on the other hand, as a designer, and as the publisher or my own website, prefer the way geneva looks aliased, and picked that font to be displayed at that size BECAUSE it renders aliased. It is small, crisp, and high contrast.

Maybe im just asking to much from such a "modern" OS.

[drmcnutt]

Originally posted by bgmccollum:
I think it comes down to being a responsible web designer and knowing your audience. If you know that the majority of the people that come to your site use a mac, you can almost guarantee that they have geneva installed.

If you dont like the way geneva renders, then dont use it on YOUR pages. I, on the other hand, as a designer, and as the publisher or my own website, prefer the way geneva looks aliased, and picked that font to be displayed at that size BECAUSE it renders aliased. It is small, crisp, and high contrast.

Maybe im just asking to much from such a "modern" OS.

Or assuming too much from your audience. It is the World Wide Web after all and making choices that limit your audience on purpose seems shortsighted (maybe only to me). A good designer, especially for the web, considers the broad spectrum of users that may come across their work and considering the PC environment makes up the majority of surfers, it's really crippling any appeal your site may have for them.

DRM

[stew]

The only way I know a web designer can be sure that a piece of text will look on his screen exactly the same as the viewer's screen is Flash. The rest, even with the fanciest css-support an smart JavaScript browser detection doesn't really work.

What's bothering me more about Quartz font rendering is that it doesn't use subpixel hinting. What it does is render the font at a large size and then scaling it down to the desired size instead. While this is the way to make it look more like printed, it doesn't work well on today's low-resolution displays. Screen and paper are not the same, so Apple please don't pretend like you could render fonts on both media using the same algorithms.

[Cadaver]

All I care about is finding a way to anti-alias these forums in Mozilla...

Anyone know how?

[Mark Tungston]

why does everyone like anti-alias so much?

I LOVE ALIASED TEXt

it's more readable and it has better contrast. in fact, i reverted back to os9 for awhile because i miss it so much. i turn offas much AA type as i can in osx

[Gul Banana]

The main point of your argument seems to be that you desire to impose a specific font and a specific aliasing (or lack thereof) upon the viewers of your site, and that Safari does not allow you to do this.

Well:
a) Once font-smoothing is implemented (very soon, obviously) it will allow you to.
b) HTML is not a layout language, and webpages are not device-independent documents. It is unrealistic to expect your page to look the same to all users, and it is also, more importantly, unrealistic to expect them to all have the same preferences. There seem to be a significant number of people who like the look of antialiased Geneva more than the look of aliased Geneva. While I am not one of them, you should not force a specific look on people simply because it is "correct", the real definition of which is "what you prefer". Your reasons for that preference are irrelevant, as are the reasons of people who have different preferences - so feel free to set font-smoothing: never, but don't be surprised or complain when people override it with user stylesheets, or set their system to antialias everything regardless of font.

[brainchild2b]

you're all overlooking a huge difference. It's the display. The people who like aliased usually have a shitty display or have it in way to high of a resolution.

The reason Hyatt probably likes antialiased 9 point is because he is looking at it on a beautiful digital LCD and anti-aliased 9point fonts look wonderful on an LCD with subpixel rendering.

People often overlook how important a display can be. I recommend spending at least $1000 on your display as it's how u view the entire computer and makes a huge difference. If you become used to a shitty display you won't even realize how bad it is until you look at something better.

[Visnaut]

There's no question, bgmccollum, that your knowledge and points regarding fonts and their display are thorough, and well written, and I respect that. However, all you're merely doing is justifying your preferences, and it's doubtful that you'll change anyone's else's. Especially when you label all of those who prefer otherwise as "stupid people".

I, for example, have an old blueberry ASD 15" LCD, and I prefer all of my text anti-aliased. As a fellow web designer, you of all people should know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Simply expecting everyone to fall in line with your views on such a subjective medium is naïve and unrealistic. And when you belittle those with differing preferences, it makes you sound much like a PC zealot belittling Mac users (and I'm sure you've had to deal with that at some point in your career right?)

Originally posted by bgmccollum:
Maybe im just asking to much from such a "modern" OS.

No, I think you're asking too much from your audience. At the end of the day, you have to realize that people simply see things differently, especially such a diverse audience as internet users. And don't you think that those who share your tastes will simply use Camino, or other browsers that share such a 'convention'? Food for thought...

[barbarian]

You can put whatever fancy language and historical references around the issue, but to me the problem is very simple.

Some people like anti-aliased fonts at small sizes.

Some people don't.

The preference is totally subjective and it varies from font to font.

Ultimately for OS X to be the high-holy OS for both geeks and designers we need to be able to have complete control over anti-aliasing of any font on the screen including System fonts.

[jasong]

I can't believe I read that whole thing only to find out it was a "I want OS 9" post . . .

-- Jason

PS I found it interesting and informative though

[direktor]

Via Summarize service and the swedish chef:


it is fery cumplex in its coorfes itc. it is pre-a-cumpooter, pre-a-trooe-a-type-a und pre-a-untee-eleeesing, thees funt vuoold be-a herd tu deespley et smell seezes veet suleed oon/ooffff peexels. ...noo vhee yuoo gu tu preent tu a leser preenter, zee beetmep ferseeun ooff teemes isnt used, zee preenter feele-a teemes is used, vheech is fectur, und zee preenter currectly renders teemes veet ell it smuut coorfes und glury. ...seence-a peuple-a vere-a useeng zeese-a funts tu preent veet, fur vheech zeey vere-a nefer deseegned tu be-a used fur, fectur ferseeuns sterted tu shoo up ELONG SIDE zee beetmep ferseeun. Bork Bork Bork!

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
All I care about is finding a way to anti-alias these forums in Mozilla...

Anyone know how?

Found a solution to my own problem...

Forced font smoothing with Tinkertool and Silk. Looks nice now, IMHO.

[Mark Tungston]

Originally posted by brainchild2b:
you're all overlooking a huge difference. It's the display. The people who like aliased usually have a shitty display or have it in way to high of a resolution.

The reason Hyatt probably likes antialiased 9 point is because he is looking at it on a beautiful digital LCD and anti-aliased 9point fonts look wonderful on an LCD with subpixel rendering.

People often overlook how important a display can be. I recommend spending at least $1000 on your display as it's how u view the entire computer and makes a huge difference. If you become used to a shitty display you won't even realize how bad it is until you look at something better.

i have a 900$ nec LCD.... I HATE ANTI-ALIAS

i think it's ridiculous to smooth fonts when we've had great os9 alias text for so long

[Helvetica Neue]

Originally posted by cowerd:
Helvetica Neue is not a newfangled truetype update to Helvetica

Interesting to see a debate on the history of typography at macnn

I turn off anti-aliasing in most apps, especially MS office.

Personally, I'm more bothered about the half-baked .dfonts used in Mac OS X incarnations so far - they conflict with existing type 1 fonts on system and cause problems outputting files to print.

If Apple want to hail OS X as OS for the prepress future, this is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

I'd say, use Open Type, as a true single-file, cross-platform font, in 10.3!

[drmcnutt]

Originally posted by direktor:
Via Summarize service and the swedish chef:


it is fery cumplex in its coorfes itc. it is pre-a-cumpooter, pre-a-trooe-a-type-a und pre-a-untee-eleeesing, thees funt vuoold be-a herd tu deespley et smell seezes veet suleed oon/ooffff peexels. ...noo vhee yuoo gu tu preent tu a leser preenter, zee beetmep ferseeun ooff teemes isnt used, zee preenter feele-a teemes is used, vheech is fectur, und zee preenter currectly renders teemes veet ell it smuut coorfes und glury. ...seence-a peuple-a vere-a useeng zeese-a funts tu preent veet, fur vheech zeey vere-a nefer deseegned tu be-a used fur, fectur ferseeuns sterted tu shoo up ELONG SIDE zee beetmep ferseeun. Bork Bork Bork!

This is the funniest thing I read today. Thanks Bork, bork bork.

DRM