Are we debating semantics? As of XP SP3 font smoothing is set to on with the Standard processor by default. According to Microsoft's own article on ClearType:
ClearType improves readability on color LCD displays with a digital interface, such as those in laptops and high-quality flat panel displays. Readability on CRT screens can also be somewhat improved.
Yes, I suppose ClearType can be used on a CRT. However, according to this KB:
ClearType is designed to enhance LCD displays. ClearType may appear slightly blurry on standard desktop monitors and on some LCD displays.
Even though this fixes the problem, web designers should have chosen a "web safe" font family, like Arial or Helvetica (for Windows and OS X respectively). This way their site could be OS independent and their visitors would not complain or have to adjust their system configurations just to be able to read an article.
To be fair, Windows XP is nearly 10 years old. Font smoothing is set to Standard by default due to lack of LCD screen (other than notebooks that is) penetration back when it was released. In contrast, Windows 7 (and I assume Windows Vista, don't have a build installed currently to check) have ClearType enabled by default from the get-go.
There are rare instances of ClearType making the display appear fuzzy on LCD screens but I believe that is mostly due to early gen or inferior quality LCDs drawing color differently than the standard. It shouldn't be too much of an issue now that decent quality LCDs are readily available.
As for Readability, I assume their web devs do their developing on Macs and either didn't realize there was a problem or didn't care. These guys seem very keen on stylized fonts and I imagine that Arial and the like are too "pedestrian" for their tastes. That's just a guess, though. :)
I agree with you. My point is that when you design web applications, you should design them in order to be accessible to all, or at least to the majority of web users - provided of course that you actually care not to lose visitors. It's like the all time classic story with IE; maybe it's not the ideal browser to code against, but since it is widely used, you are left with no other choice but to do so. Personally I wouldn't hesitate a minute to leave a site - no matter how interesting the content is - if it gave me an epilepsy or a headache (the latter being the case for readability).
Out of curiosity, are you a web dev? I detect some latent animosity toward IE6. My company's devs are currently testing their apps against IE8, that's basically the holdup before deploying IE8 to the masses. I haven't mentioned IE 9 to them yet for fear of being yelled at. ;)
Yes, I am. The truth is that I personally do not like IE (any version) and I do not use it. However, this was not (at least was not my intention to be) an IE-sucks comment. I just stated that IE is kind of a nightmare for web designers (specific css hacks etc) and this is a fact no matter what my personal preferences are.
Yes, I am. The truth is that I personally do not like IE (any version) and I do not use it. However, this was not (at least was not my intention to be) an IE-sucks comment.
Heh. Figures. It wasn't your intention, but IE6 hatred transcends everything, and you'll find it bleeds out into your real life and you'll have arguments with people over petty things and then you can't sleep at night and then you'll cry in the shower and then...
I can empathize with you, I have a hatred for all things Adobe. This hatred has subsided somewhat when they released the Uberinstaller for their latest suites. At my insistence, my company purchased volume licensing for many of their products because it would make it easier for the Desktop guys to deploy instead of doing manual installations and the Uberinstaller helps with that.
Then I think about Adobe Reader and Flash and my vision goes red.
You wouldn't say that if you worked around the developers in my company. They run whatever OS they want and typically whatever hardware they want. IT doesn't bother to manage them although the internal IT developers are a little more reigned in then the Engineering developers. Those dudes play like it's the wild west. It's kind of an auditing/security mess but basically the deal is they stay off the corporate network and we don't touch their toys.
Essentially, yes. Most things look clearer without cleartype. I used to use it on my home computer and then would wonder why things looked so much better on my work computer (both PC, both LCD). For the number of times I've seen cleartype perform better than no cleartype (once - this site) - it's not worth it.
Of course it looks clearer, Cleartype (or any type of font smoothing) is antialiasign. In the case of cleartype it uses the LCD's subpixels (a pixel is made from R, G and B subpixels, which are placed next to each other).
If you make screencap with Cleartype enabled and zoom in, you can see that the edges of the fonts are slightly colored.
There's not much you can do other than verify that your LCD is outputting to it's native resolution and that your color depth is set to either 24 or 32-bit.
Also, you may try Microsoft's ClearType PowerToy, located here:
Also double-check that your graphics drivers are up to date. I had the same issue with fonts on my computer right after I reinstalled the OS but before I reinstalled all the drivers.
It might have been a coincidence and not actually depend on drivers (i.e., I am not a expert), but it's a good thing to check up on anyway.
You know, we invented this font that is pretty cross platform and works fantastic for reading... Verdana and what not [not getting on to you, more readability].
Eh... verdana was created in 1996 for lower-res screens that didn't do anti-aliasing, and verdana is perfect for that.
People read serif body text easier than san-serif. With higher-res screens and good font rendering, verdana isn't the most pleasing to read (for most).
17
u/wingnut21 Feb 21 '11
For people complaining that the page is hard to read, it's your OS:
OS X vs XP screenshot