469,327 Members | 1,226 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,327 developers. It's quick & easy.

cleartype or not ?

does anyone know if WinXP by default uses 'Cleartype' or 'Standard'. i
noticed that using 'standard' all font-families (except sans-serif) are
NOT anti-aliassed, while with 'cleartype' everything is anti-aliassed.
This behaviour appears not to depend on the browser used.

i think this 'cleartype' thing was introduced with winxp, or was it
already included in older version of windows ??

gr
martin
Jul 21 '05 #1
23 6161
Martin! wrote:
does anyone know if WinXP by default uses 'Cleartype' or 'Standard'. i
noticed that using 'standard' all font-families (except sans-serif) are
NOT anti-aliassed, while with 'cleartype' everything is anti-aliassed.
This behaviour appears not to depend on the browser used.

i think this 'cleartype' thing was introduced with winxp, or was it
already included in older version of windows ??


Cleartype appeared with XP. On my PC, Cleartype was not enabled by
default: I had to enable it, and when I did, I REALLY noticed the
difference.
Jul 21 '05 #2
> Cleartype appeared with XP. On my PC, Cleartype was not enabled by
default: I had to enable it, and when I did, I REALLY noticed the
difference.


My experience is similar: never seen a system with it enabled by default.

It raises a question: should designers assume CT is on or off when they
select fonts and font sizes? I know users can control both (if the CSS is
done right), but I'm always concerned when I'm seeing things differently
than other people. Since using XP and CT, I think I gravitate towards
smaller fonts, which maybe not be best for web designers.

On the Macintosh, it seems fonts are smoothed by default...web pages for
that reason look quite different on the Mac than Windows (well, OK, for
other reasons as well, but I'm just thinking of text here).
Jul 21 '05 #3
Dana Cartwright wrote:
Cleartype appeared with XP. On my PC, Cleartype was not enabled by
default: I had to enable it, and when I did, I REALLY noticed the
difference.


My experience is similar: never seen a system with it enabled by default.

It raises a question: should designers assume CT is on or off when they
select fonts and font sizes? I know users can control both (if the CSS is
done right), but I'm always concerned when I'm seeing things differently
than other people. Since using XP and CT, I think I gravitate towards
smaller fonts, which maybe not be best for web designers.

On the Macintosh, it seems fonts are smoothed by default...web pages for
that reason look quite different on the Mac than Windows (well, OK, for
other reasons as well, but I'm just thinking of text here).


Older versions of Windows have a font smoothing option.

As for what designers should assume: in my case, enabling Cleartype did
not affect how I specify font families and font sizes; it only made it
easier for me to read text.

Jul 21 '05 #4
As for what designers should assume: in my case, enabling Cleartype did
not affect how I specify font families and font sizes; it only made it
easier for me to read text.


i was simply wondering if i should make text-images or use plain text. i
really dont like to make text-images but for titles and logos it is
still very often used.
Jul 21 '05 #5
"Dana Cartwright" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
It raises a question: should designers assume CT is on or off when they
select fonts and font sizes?


Perhaps a better question is whether designers should select fonts
and sizes. (Hint: the answer is no. RELATIVE sizes in % or em,
yes; absolute sizes in px or pt, no.)

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Jul 21 '05 #6
"Martin!" <m.*******@gmail.comcomcommer> wrote in message
news:d3**********@news.hispeed.ch...

i was simply wondering if i should make text-images or use plain text. i
really dont like to make text-images but for titles and logos it is still
very often used.


For me, it's a decision that rests with the person who's paying for the
website.

For my own work, I avoid using text in images. For all the reasons that
have been spelled out in this group.

But once I explain the issues to my client, it's their call. It's their
website. It's my job to create a website the way the client wants it, not
the way I want it.

So who's paying for your website?
Jul 21 '05 #7
"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:3b*************@individual.net...
"Dana Cartwright" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
It raises a question: should designers assume CT is on or off when they
select fonts and font sizes?


Perhaps a better question is whether designers should select fonts
and sizes. (Hint: the answer is no. RELATIVE sizes in % or em,
yes; absolute sizes in px or pt, no.)


I think you're letting political correctness get in the way of reasoning.

Setting the font size in % or em is still setting the font size. It's
"kinder, gentler" because users can more easily override it, but it's still
setting the font size.

Let me rephrase my question:

Suppose I have cleartype turn off, and I generally design pages with
text-size:90%, just because to my eye that looks about right.

Now, I turn cleartype on, and I find myself more often specifying 80% for
the text size, because the page looks clearer to me.

If most people are running their machines with cleartype turned off (because
that's the default), then it's bad that I'm using 80%. I should stick with
90%, even though on my development machine 90% looks bigger than it needs to
be.

So should the rule be "since most people have cleartype turned off by
default, web designers should consider how their pages look with it turned
off, rather than on, because that's how most people see it". And of course
you have the usual struggle with how you measure how many people have
cleartype on versus off.
Jul 21 '05 #8
Dana Cartwright wrote:
"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:3b*************@individual.net...
"Dana Cartwright" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
It raises a question: should designers assume CT is on or off
when they select fonts and font sizes?

Should designers assume all visitors are using Windows XP?
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearTypeInfo.mspx
Perhaps a better question is whether designers should select
fonts and sizes. (Hint: the answer is no. RELATIVE sizes in % or
em, yes; absolute sizes in px or pt, no.)
I think you're letting political correctness get in the way of
reasoning.

Setting the font size in % or em is still setting the font size.
It's "kinder, gentler" because users can more easily override it,
but it's still setting the font size.


Setting no font size is actually better, but one common browser has
bugs if none is specified; therefore it is better to overcome that bug
by setting it to 100%. Name that browser. <g>
Let me rephrase my question:

Suppose I have cleartype turn off, and I generally design pages
with text-size:90%, just because to my eye that looks about right.
Your eyes may be in better shape than some of your visitors.
Now, I turn cleartype on, and I find myself more often specifying
80% for the text size, because the page looks clearer to me.
I probably wouldn't be able to read it. If your site was truly worthy,
I might click that Disable Author Font checkbox on my toolbar, or I
might just go to another site that I can read.
If most people are running their machines with cleartype turned off
(because that's the default), then it's bad that I'm using 80%. I
should stick with 90%, even though on my development machine 90%
looks bigger than it needs to be.
No, you should stick with the "visitor's default" which is 100%.
So should the rule be "since most people have cleartype turned off
by default, web designers should consider how their pages look with
it turned off, rather than on, because that's how most people see
it". And of course you have the usual struggle with how you
measure how many people have cleartype on versus off.


Is cleartype available for Linux users, Mac users, PDA users ...

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 21 '05 #9
"Dana Cartwright" <da******@weavemaker.com> wrote:
Suppose I have cleartype turn off, and I generally design pages with
text-size:90%, just because to my eye that looks about right.


Do you design the pages for yourself only? There are quite some "I"s
and "me"s in this sentence. If not, then how is this relevant?

Why don't you set the fontsize to 100% and make the default font size
in your browser smaller. Obviously, it is generally too big for your
taste.

Then you get the size you like, and anybody else get the size he wants
and it will be displayed best for everyone.

Bye,
Martin
Jul 21 '05 #10
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Dana Cartwright wrote:
"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:3b*************@individual.net...
"Dana Cartwright" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
It raises a question: should designers assume CT is on or off when they
select fonts and font sizes?

Doesn't matter. If you are changing some font-size, where is makes
difference, you are causing problems wither way.
letting political correctness get in the way of reasoning.
Not really. If both options are bad, there is no much sence to find out
which is less worse, when there is better and easier option...
Setting the font size in % or em is still setting the font size. It's
"kinder, gentler" because users can more easily override it, but it's still
setting the font size.


Yes. Whatever way you use to set body font, it is bad idea. As headings
and other stuff which for font size change is OK, there is usually no
legibility issues, as size is bigger than body text.

Cleartype is just one more reson not to set font size.

If you prefer 90% or 80% fontsizes, you should adjust your browswer
settings.

Anyway, the difference between CRT and LCD is bigger, even when comparing
the very best CRT to very worst LCD. Again, there is no way to know which
one someone uses. Of course, the user has better change to know it, and
font size issue should be let for him/her.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Support me, buy Opera:
https://secure.bmtmicro.com/opera/bu...tml?AID=882173
Jul 21 '05 #11
"Dana Cartwright" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Suppose I have cleartype turn off, and I generally design pages with
text-size:90%, just because to my eye that looks about right.


Then you're falling into a similar logical trap. Because _you_ have
the font on _your_ browser set 11%(*) higher than you prefer,
you're going to try to reduce the font on everyone else's browser
to 90% of what they prefer.

Instead, you should adjust your browser so that normal-sized type
at 100% looks right to you. And you should never use text-size:
anything but 100% for ordinary body text.

(*) Yes, 11%: 90% of 111% is close to 100%.
--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Jul 21 '05 #12
"Lauri Raittila" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
If you prefer 90% or 80% fontsizes, you should adjust your browswer
settings.


Three out of three of us posted the same advice today.
Wouldn't it be nice (and unexpected) if the OP actually accepts it?

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Jul 21 '05 #13
"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:3b*************@individual.net...
"Lauri Raittila" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
If you prefer 90% or 80% fontsizes, you should adjust your browswer
settings.


Three out of three of us posted the same advice today.
Wouldn't it be nice (and unexpected) if the OP actually accepts it?


So explain to me why Google doesn't use the default text size on their home
page?

I will take advice that makes sense to me. But there are multiple
authorities on this subject; you say one thing, Google seems to say
differently.

I'll accept that you and Google are both experts on the web. But you
disagree. So when experts disagree...?
Jul 21 '05 #14
"Dana Cartwright" <da******@weavemaker.com> wrote:
So explain to me why Google doesn't use the default text size on
their home page?
What did Google answer when you asked them?
But there are multiple
authorities on this subject; you say one thing, Google seems to say
differently.


What makes you think Google is an authority? It's a successful company.
It's successful because it offers search functionality that people
like, not because it cluelessly uses font size reduction. In fact, many
people set up their own interfaces to Google just because of such
things. (To be honest, Google's user interface is not that bad,
especially if you compare it with many other search engines. It's
simple and does not distract too much from the essence, the search
facility.)

Besides, Google uses <font> markup and not CSS for font size reduction.
Do you suggest that we should seriously honor Google's authority in
that matter too? (Google's main page has .h{font-size: 20px;}
but it does not specify class="h" anywhere.)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Jul 21 '05 #15
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
"Dana Cartwright" <da******@weavemaker.com> wrote:

So explain to me why Google doesn't use the default text size on
their home page?

What did Google answer when you asked them?

But there are multiple
authorities on this subject; you say one thing, Google seems to say
differently.

What makes you think Google is an authority?

And of course if your eyes are anything less than perfect you use the
'view' menu in, say, Mozilla to enlarge the size of the type anyway.
(And no, I am not visually impaired. Just older than you are.)

I'm willing to do that for Google because the information is valuable.
I'm much less impressed by the idea of doing it for X-random web site.

There's also your notion that something that 'looks right' to you on
your screen with your browser and your level of visual acuity is in fact
universally right. This is, shall we say, 'quaint'?

--RC
Jul 21 '05 #16
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Rick Cook wrote:
And of course if your eyes are anything less than perfect you use
the 'view' menu in, say, Mozilla to enlarge the size of the type
anyway.


Mozilla has a setting to impose a minimum font size. This seems to me
a better compromise than having to magnify sites which persist in
reducing the font size too far below my preferred default (and then to
restore the font size for authors who *are* prepared to accept my own
choice in the matter).

[I have to remember to remove this safety net when I'm asked to review
web pages, though.]

Jul 21 '05 #17
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Dana Cartwright wrote:
"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:3b*************@individual.net...
"Lauri Raittila" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
If you prefer 90% or 80% fontsizes, you should adjust your browswer
settings.
Three out of three of us posted the same advice today.
Wouldn't it be nice (and unexpected) if the OP actually accepts it?


So explain to me why Google doesn't use the default text size on their home
page?


Use at least for me. I get front page that is in Finnish and suggests me
to move on the Netherlands google page, so maybe it is different.

I see, it was because I ignore <font> tags.

Anyway, there is no body text in google front page.
I will take advice that makes sense to me. But there are multiple
authorities on this subject; you say one thing, Google seems to say
differently.
Well, if you take suggesful company, and think that makes it's websites
good example, why not Microsoft?
I'll accept that you and Google are both experts on the web.


Different field. I am no good on stuff that google is good. Google is not
good on some other stuff. Front end of it's services has always been
problem.

For example is that they don't use external style files. Why? It makes no
sence to send lots of CSS for every load. And it would be very likely
that google css would be always on every cache in world so it would
propably make things faster.

And no google page has ever validated. Again, there doesn't seem to be
any reason. They are getting better, but if their reason is to save
bytes, why are they using transitional bad stuff, and OTH not leaving out
unnecessary tags (like <html>)
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Support me, buy Opera:
https://secure.bmtmicro.com/opera/bu...tml?AID=882173
Jul 21 '05 #18
Stan Brown wrote:
(*) Yes, 11%: 90% of 111% is close to 100%.


Actually it's not. Size for a two dimensional object such as a PC
display screen is a function of area, not just height or width. Area
always has both height and width. CSS "size" is a nominal size, not a
real size for any size other than 100%. For any size other than 100%,
the fraction must be squared (or fractions if not the same for both) to
get the real size. So, a nominal 90% "size" is in fact 81% of the
original size it is applied to.
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/area76.html
--
"Love your neighbor as yourself." Matthew 22:39 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jul 21 '05 #19
"Felix Miata" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Stan Brown wrote:
(*) Yes, 11%: 90% of 111% is close to 100%.


Actually it's not. Size for a two dimensional object such as a PC
display screen is a function of area, not just height or width. Area
always has both height and width. CSS "size" is a nominal size, not a
real size for any size other than 100%. For any size other than 100%,
the fraction must be squared (or fractions if not the same for both) to
get the real size. So, a nominal 90% "size" is in fact 81% of the
original size it is applied to.


True but irrelevant. Text sizes in CSS and (old) HTML are specified
in height, not area measure.

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Jul 21 '05 #20
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Stan Brown wrote:
"Felix Miata" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Stan Brown wrote:
(*) Yes, 11%: 90% of 111% is close to 100%.
Size for a two dimensional object such as a PC
display screen is a function of area, not just height or width. Area
always has both height and width.
True but irrelevant.
But good point anyway

It is good point that 90% sized font is actually 81% of orginal size...

So, next time, when someon asks how to make his font 20% smaller, we
can say font-size:90%.
Text sizes in CSS and (old) HTML are specified
in height, not area measure.


But displayed in 2D.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Support me, buy Opera:
https://secure.bmtmicro.com/opera/bu...tml?AID=882173
Jul 21 '05 #21
On Mon, Apr 11, Lauri Raittila inscribed on the eternal scroll:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Stan Brown wrote:
"Felix Miata" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Size for a two dimensional object such as a PC
display screen is a function of area, not just height or width. Area
always has both height and width.
True but irrelevant.


But good point anyway


Indeed. The result of a 90% (linear) scaling is certainly perceived
to be larger than 90% - which is not surprising as the perceived
result is an area. Whether the perceived hit is really as bad as 81%,
might be argued, but it's by no means as simple as the linear factor
of 90% implies.
So, next time, when someon asks how to make his font 20% smaller, we
can say font-size:90%.
That's a bit sneaky, but it's a good point...
Text sizes in CSS and (old) HTML are specified
in height, not area measure.


Indeed they are, but the perceived effect is by no means linear. That
was what the argument was about, AIUI.
But displayed in 2D.


Quite.

--
Procrastination gives you something to look forward
to putting off tomorrow. -spotted on ahbou
Jul 21 '05 #22
"Lauri Raittila" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Stan Brown wrote:
"Felix Miata" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
>Stan Brown wrote:
>
>> (*) Yes, 11%: 90% of 111% is close to 100%. >Size for a two dimensional object such as a PC
>display screen is a function of area, not just height or width. Area
>always has both height and width.

True but irrelevant.


But good point anyway

It is good point that 90% sized font is actually 81% of orginal size...


I agree it's a good point in visual design, but I meant it was
irrelevant to the point at issue, which was interaction between a
user's choice and a designer's override of that choice.

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Jul 21 '05 #23
Stan Brown wrote:
Felix Miata wrote:
Stan Brown wrote:
(*) Yes, 11%: 90% of 111% is close to 100%.
Actually it's not. Size for a two dimensional object such as a PC
display screen is a function of area, not just height or width. Area
always has both height and width. CSS "size" is a nominal size, not a
real size for any size other than 100%. For any size other than 100%,
the fraction must be squared (or fractions if not the same for both) to
get the real size. So, a nominal 90% "size" is in fact 81% of the
original size it is applied to.

True but irrelevant. Text sizes in CSS and (old) HTML are specified
in height, not area measure.


Abosolutely relevant. CSS sizes are purely nominal specifications that
distort the reality, giving a perception that the putative effect they
have is less than the actual effect they have. Area is the real size.
90% is a fictitious size. 81% the actual size.
--
"Love your neighbor as yourself." Matthew 22:39 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jul 21 '05 #24

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

reply views Thread by cloabell | last post: by
7 posts views Thread by hoppy | last post: by
5 posts views Thread by =?Utf-8?B?bGpsZXZlbmQy?= | last post: by
reply views Thread by zhoujie | last post: by
reply views Thread by suresh191 | last post: by
reply views Thread by listenups61195 | last post: by
reply views Thread by Purva khokhar | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.