Huh? Are you talking about the rendering of type or HTML? And if it’s the fonts you are talking about, do you then mean that the rendering is like that on OS X instead of Vistas Cleartype. And if so, could you post comparative screenshots?

The text rendering, the fonts.

>do you then mean that the rendering is like that on OS X instead of Vistas Cleartype.

Yes.

>And if so, could you post comparative screenshots?

Will do.

In the Jungle...

IE7...

The rasterizer folks don’t think the rendering style is natively possible in Windows, so specualte Quartz has been ported across. On the plus side Windows based type designers can use the browser to proof their type without buying a Mac ;-)

I don’t know about Quartz, but it does include a copy of Lucida Grande...

C:\Program Files\Safari\Safari.resources\Lucida Grande.ttf.

It looks like Safari does use it as well, for example in the location bar.

but its not .OTF

hmm...

It took me second to grasp what “in the jungle” meant.... hahahah

Mikey

Hmm. There are files labeled CoreFoundation.dll and CoreGraphics.dll. This could mean that the ported some or all of those APIs to Windoze. Below is an actual dialog from Safari for Windows showing what appear to be Macintosh control widgets. This could mean that Apple plans to make it easier for Macintosh developers to port their applications to Windows.

If I ever make a dictionary, the entry for “retarded” will be this.

hhp

I don’t know that I would go as far as retarded, but porting over the Core Graphics APIs does strike me as someone taking branding a little too far.

>C:\Program Files\Safari\Safari.resources\Lucida Grande.ttf.

I noticed the Lucida, wasn’t sure if they used the Lucida Unicode installed on every Windows machine, but your sleuthing reveals all. I also think Lucida is used as the defalt sans-serif font for Web pages and not just UI, which is nice. Well done Chuck!

Obvious question, does Windows iTunes use the same rendering?

If I ever make a dictionary, the entry for “retarded” will be this.

This sort of topic, for some Typophiles, may be on the edge of relevancy. Since it’s pertinence is not obvious to experts in type aesthetics and history it should, arguably, be moved to “Build” since it is somewhat technical.

If Apple did make the Mac text-rendering APIs available to the Windows platform, it would be a significant development. There are arguably, four major font rasterizers, and this might make them all available on the same system.

The topic is brilliant - especially to me, a screenfont junkie.
Apple’s move is what’s retarded.

hhp

Even though Apple seems to make zero profit from Safari itself, bring it to Windoze will help proliferate more apps for the iPhony.

As a sidenote... Sun has open sourced their Solaris operating system in the hope that more people will look at their servers... its working.

Its a trojan horse... we’ll just have to wait and see if it really works for Apple.

Mike Diaz

Retarded? Apple has done some crazy stuff. Often, most everything they do is met with immediate hostility. That said, a good chunk of their craziness succeeds. So, perhaps retarded like a fox.

I doubt porting Safari was their main goal. There is more to this that we know at this point. iPhone support seems to be the leading theory.

I don’t see this as a product for Windows users, but rather as a demonstration for Macintosh developers. Do software vendors really want Windows programs to look like Macintosh programs? That may well be a dubious goal.

> I don’t see this as a product for Windows users

I hope against hope that everybody agrees.

hhp

Some “press” reaction to the rendering, most don’t like it -

http://www.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=safari+font

And what’s with the “no, you’re retarded” and “windoze” jibes? Last week of school? ;-)

I said iPhony to be fair.

total shite... it’s a fuzzy mess and what a crap tool bar. Firefox rules.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/93279914@N00/542631803/

runs on a mac with Vista like s-hit-e

Even though Apple seems to make zero profit from Safari itself, bring it to Windoze will help proliferate more apps for the iPhony.

Actually, it turns out they make some decent money off Safari, which will increase if more Windows user switch to Safari. It turns out that when you use an integrated search bar in a browser like Safari or Firefox, the browser maker gets a cut of the ad revenue from the search results:

http://daringfireball.net/2007/06/wwdc_2007_keynote

It’s still a shame, though, that Windows Safari bypasses Cleartype.

Mais oui, hubris oblige!

hhp

I HATE Cleartype. I think it’s crap, and the legibility tests Microsoft do are bordering on ridiculous. More on the topic here: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html?hi=joel

Even though Apple seems to make zero profit from Safari itself, bring it to Windoze will help proliferate more apps for the iPhony.

Apple makes a profit from Google every time you use the Google search field in Safari. How do you think Firefox makes money? Same way. And if Apple can bump Safari marketshare from 5% to 10% (not at all unrealistic) then they achieve critical mass on the marketplace and double their profits from Safari.

If I were to spend all day admiring web pages and documents maybe I’d prefer the Apple approach. But I spend 90% of my day reading stuff off of the screen. It’s obvious you fall into the first camp as you didn’t read the article... ;-)

“The advantage of Microsoft’s method is that it works better for on-screen reading.”

“Typically, Apple chose the stylish route, putting art above practicality...”

Cheers, Si

“The advantage of Microsoft’s method is that it works better for on-screen reading.”
“Typically, Apple chose the stylish route, putting art above practicality…”

The writer’s (typically delusional) opinion, and I restate that I completely disagree.

Ah, when making an argument I tend to point to articles that support my opinion rather than those to which I completely disagree.

However, as I’m not sure what your point is, except that you don’t like ClearType, I can’t really help.

That’s a great article on the difference between Apple and Microsoft rendering technologies. I have to admit that it’s a little weird to see Apple’s type renderer in a Windows context. It reminded me of the first time I installed linux on an old beige mac and was presented with a black screen full of ugly type on my Apple display. Weird.

I will say, though, that as a long time Apple user, screen designer, and type designer, I can’t stand looking at type on Windows. I can see how the green monospaced type crowd might like Windows type rendering better, though.

I would argue about the “better for on screen reading” thing as well, but then this would devolve into an infamous typophile “readability” debate, where everyone cites the best evidence they have: what they personally like better. At any rate, crispness does not readability make.

I’d agree that user preference, and user expectations are at the root of the issue. But anecdotally, when Apple released bootcamp, and after reading various blog entries on parallels and similar virtualization technologies on the Mac, I’ve seen only a handful of comments from Apple fanboys about Windows font rendering. Contrast this with the near-universal chorus of complaints from the Safari early adaptors. What explains the disparity in reviewer’s intolerance?

Ah, when making an argument I tend to point to articles that support my opinion rather than those to which I completely disagree.

I make my own arguments, and I’m certainly not afraid of referring to other views than my own. The article has a nice explanation and illustration.

However, as I’m not sure what your point is, except that you don’t like ClearType, I can’t really help.

I don’t need your help.

More comparative screenshots here:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=safari+windows+ie

Looking at this: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=157343097&size=o
Who would prefer the Cleartype rendering?

>I don’t need your help.

I suppose I take “typographic collaboration” seriously ;-)

I’m not sure that the Bootcamp/Safari comparison is a good one. When people look at a web browser the first question is “How does it render stuff?” When people fire up Bootcamp, the type rendering is not necessarily the first question. (It’s more like, “What’s that little red shield? What, I don’t have virus protection? How do I get it? I have to get a subscription?” - sorry, I couldn’t resist). What’s more, I think that most everybody who installed Bootcamp or parallels had a good idea of what Windows looked like before they installed.

That being said, I don’t think it was a great idea to replace the default renderer, even though I like Apple’s type much better. A good port should be a good citizen in its new environment and try to fit in. I don’t think that Apple really intended to be a good windows citizen here, though, which might be the real root of the argument.

> I don’t think that Apple really intended to be a good windows citizen here, though, which might be the real root of the argument.

I think you’re right. Carl speculated that this may be the first step in providing the components that will make it easier for developers to port Mac apps to Windows.

Is there really any point to screenshots of Cleartype in action? With Cleartype being a subpixel rendering method, and screenshots being bitmaps of single pixels, isn’t quite a bit of information lost?

No, ClearType, CoolType, Quartz don’t work like that, they use the characteristics of the pixel to get more effective resolution, but all the information (RGB value) is contained in the pixel.

However, if you’re looking at these screen grabs on a CRT, BGR monitor or LCD in non-native resolution, or if the image is compressed or distorted, then you won’t see what we see.

The great thing about Safari is that it allows side by side comparison, and side by side font testing.

> The great thing about Safari is that it allows side by side comparison

Yes, maybe once and for all we’ll be able to separate the
reasonable Apple lovers from from the frothing berserkers.

hhp

Carl, is that the new Extensis rasterizer, InvisiType? ;-)

One step beyond the Uniglyph...

hhp

Carl, I’m curious which four rasterizers you had in mind. Maybe this should be a new thread. It would be interesting to see a bunch of them head to head. These are the ones that I know of: Microsoft ClearType, Apple Quartz, Adobe (ATM?), Freetype, iType (Monotype), D-type (don’t know if this is used anywere, but their samples look nice), Bitstream Font Fusion (never really seen this in action either, that I know of).

As for some other renderers: I really like the rasterizer Macromedia built into Fireworks with adjustable super-sampling, weight and sharpness. The new rasterizer for Flash is kind of a mess (see the insert image link at the bottom of the page). I really dislike the rasterizer that Adobe puts into its DTP apps. Photoshop anti-aliasing is mega-blurry, which is fine when you are going to print at 300dpi, but lousy for screen graphics. InDesign and Illustrator rely too much on hinting, distorting the type for on screen reading — bad for wysiwyg apps targeted at high res printers. It would be better for the type to show up a little blurrier, while giving a better sense of how the spacing and color are working out. I’ve been tricked more than once into kerning a hinted line of type in InDesign, only to discover upon zooming in/printing that I had been deceived by the hinting.

Christian, I mostly agree, but I would like to see a general
admission that WYSIWYG is very bad for onsreen readability.

Also:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/93279914@N00/542631803/

hhp

Between this thread and the Parallels 3 release I finally decided to fire up Vista and look at Cleartype. It’s ok, but no more of a readability improvement than I get by just bumping up the text size/zoom in in whatever Mac app I’m using, which I already do for the sake of my weak eyes. I guess that’s not an option for a lot of Mac apps, but I only do extended reading in Firefox, Indesign, Textedit, and Preview, so no troubles there. Regardless, Cleartype just isn’t cool enough to justify running Windows. It amazes me that all those years went into trying to make a better OS that I was sick of after five minutes.

Of course, this does bring back my favorite OS X usability pet peeve: no obvious way to increase the system font sizes all around, something that Microsoft has offered forever.

> bumping up the text size/zoom

That’s plainly ridiculous.

hhp

>Regardless, Cleartype just isn’t cool enough to justify running Windows.

Sorry to be practical, but I believe the market for Parallels is driven by access to Windows apps not available for the Mac rather than ClearType.

That’s plainly ridiculous.

No more so than large print books. IMHO web sites and software are too often coded by people who live under the deranged assumption that just because they can read minuscule screen type without much effort, so can everyone else. So I set all my browsers to render at a minimum of twelve points, do word-processing at fourteen, and generally ignore flash sites and software that use small type.

At least I’m technically adept enough to get by like that. I know people running OS X outside of the native screen resolution of their displays because otherwise they can’t read the menu type and are too technologically inept to get by otherwise.

Sorry to be practical, but I believe the market for Parallels is driven by access to Windows apps not available for the Mac rather than ClearType.

Very true. I just miss the days when new stuff from Microsoft was a really big deal, and really cool. Now I just leave my Windows machine powered-down for months at a time and reminisce about the good old Win2k days. But I just found out that I can watch Akira in HD on an XBox 360, so I may be diving back into the Microsoft world this weekend.

> No more so than large print books.

No, the parallel in books would be for you to propose
that everybody should just read the large print ones.

> web sites and software are too often coded by
> people who live under the deranged assumption

Coded? Sounds more like graphic designers...
Except for the “they can read” part, since they try hard not to.

hhp

FWIW, back in 2003 when I switched over to Mac OSX, from Windows 2000, and started using Safari and Mail, I was also quite shocked to see how blurry the type looked. Nowadays it just feels natural, and whenever I need to use XP, the type just feels too crude.

> Nowadays it just feels natural

Yes, I myself got used to the car bombs during the war.
Now it all feels anti-climactic.

—

BTW, congrats! :-)

hhp

Hmm...

I was just fiddling with http://typetester.maratz.com/ on my PC and my Mac side by side. I’m comming at this as a designer of websites. PC running XP IE6 FF2, Mac Safari 2 .. both sides at default settings since most leave it like it comes out of the box.

My biggest gripe with pc screen typography is that certain sizes of certain fonts look fantastic. But heaven forbid that you specify bold at that size. Or increase the size 1px. Case in point, Arial Bold 14px (nastified). Verdana 16px Bold (bold? bold?). Up to 17px, ok now it’s bold, but the spacing is all wack. In fact, i would say px sizes 14+ look ghastly on my pc.

No fair you say? Clear Type not turned on in the PC example. How many users open Control Panel > Display > Effects > Screen Font > Clear Type to click that box? My issue is what joe pc sees when he fires up his Dell box, but Ok. Now clear type is active:

Hey that 17px is looking much better on the pc. Beter than the mac? Debatable. How is the 16px? Craptastic spacing and contrast. Mac? Still pretty decent.

In conclusion: on a PC without cleartype, 10% of type options get an A, 90% get a C-. With cleartype on, the percentages improve somewhat. Out of the box on a mac, 100% get an A-. I’ll take freedom and an A-. Call me artsy.

R

Yeah, that’s right. So very, very many Web pages I read use 16px Verdana Bold ;-)

In all seriousness I think it’s incredibly difficult to objectively compare rendering, especially when you take fonts created for, or tuned for, a particular environment across to another environment. You almost have to compare each platform’s showcase fonts against each other - Verdana and Georgia for aliased TrueType, the ClearType Collection fonts for ClearType, but what for Mac OS? Is Lucida Grande the showcase font?

> How many users open Control Panel > Display > Effects > Screen Font > Clear Type to click that box?

Almost none. Which is why CT is on by default in Vista...

Your A- is a C- to me. Artsy? Nah, Modernist. Consistently mediocre
is still mediocre. There’s no good reason for Apple’s rendering to be
this bad, and even less reason for so many people to be in denial
about it.

> I think it’s incredibly difficult to objectively compare rendering

Not least when you factor in the gamma difference issue.
“You have to be there.”™

hhp

Sii, I would like to be able to spec 16 pt verdana bold. Eg headlines on a news site. It is not a problem that Arial 12px and 13px are 50% identical? I recognize your :-) And WRT showcase fonts, I would rather a rendering system not require any showcase magic to look good (though I applaud Microsoft’s commitment to commisioning type).

Hrant, how can you say Mac rendering is mediocre and leave no comment about CT when my example above shows PC results can be worse than mediocre? If I ignore the horrid BOLDNESS of the M, the uber tight spacing of the ll and li combos as problems, then yes I am in denial. Also, I understand that cleartype is on by default in vista. It’s too bad that won’t matter for web designers until vista reaches a critical mass in a few years.

That aside, I spent a little bit of time creating waterfalls. They are 10px-17px reg, bold and italic for arial, verdana, and georgia.

Mac:

PC - no clear type:

PC - clear type:

The good:
Both Mac and PC with clear Type look pretty darn good. PC’s stregnth is 10-12px size. Mac’s strength is larger sizes and consistency across the waterfall.

The bad:
With PC-ct there are bad combinations you’d want to avoid 15px arial bold, 16px verdana bold, and there is more variation from the outlines even at large sizes. Mac is not as crisp as small sizes.

The really bad:
While Mr. Mac and Mr. Clear Type are nice passengers, the person still driving teh bus is Mr. Shagnasty (PC without clear type).

In my opinion:
Considering the pluses and minuses of both, my preference is still for Mac rendering. It shines even more when rendering fonts are not designed as “showcase” fonts (see the times comparison earlier). Fortunately, displays are increasing in resolution and today’s headline sizes are tomorrows text sizes. Hardware to the rescue!

R

I should add this no brainer, clear type is optimized for PC gamma and Quartz for Mac gamma. Effectively, this mean Mac type looks less fuzzy on a Mac, and PC type looks smoother on PC than it does on mac.

Thus, none of the above comparisons are fair when viewed on one platform only.

EDIT:
So to revise my opinion, my ideal rendering system would use cleartype-style rendering at PC gamma from 0-12px and Quart at Mac gamma from 13px+

I’m no big fan of CT at all. But at least it’s trying the
right thing, it’s making the user-friendly compromises.

> PC’s stregnth is 10-12px size.

Yeah, reading.
Not purdy pitcherz.

hhp

Two comments in response:

1. On my setup 10px is pretty much too small for reading, and 14px is not too large at all. I’m not yet 30, so I think it has more to do with screen resolution than my eyes.

2. The difference between the two at sub 12px is smaller than the difference above 12px. Which is why originally I said for the full size range I prefer quartz rendering.

Side question:
In the Safari PC test, is the gamma different than the PC? ie. does it change both variables: renderer and gamma? It doesn’t look like it based on the screen grabs when I view on my PC.

“In all seriousness I think it’s incredibly difficult to objectively compare rendering, especially when you take fonts created for, or tuned for, a particular environment across to another environment....”

So much for cross-browser/platform quality font embedding then...eh?

“You almost have to compare each platform’s showcase fonts against each other - Verdana and Georgia for aliased TrueType, the ClearType Collection fonts for ClearType, but what for Mac OS? Is Lucida Grande the showcase font?”

The mac has no showcase font. Fonts on the Mac are all created equal in the eyes of its ad hoc rasterizer. Lucida Grande, is the system font, and at the size the system uses it, it is minimally optimized but no showcase.

On the Windows side, are the ClearType Collection fonts said to be made for screen use again now, I forget?

> Fonts on the Mac are all created equal

Yes, equally unworthy.

hhp

Randy thanks for the great examples. I run at gamma 2.2, but would that alone be enough to fairly evaluate your Windows examples on my Mac? And after seeing all the examples I would still prefer Apples rendering all the way. Cleartype is very clunky both large and small.

Another thing is that I completely concur your sentiments that a whole OS should not depend on special fonts to showcase its font rendering system. That does feel very backwards does it not?

Heck, might as well have people not depend on type designers to
make good fonts, eh? The degree of convenient post-rationalization
here is... unsurprising. That’s what graphic designers are best at.

hhp

Heck, might as well have people not depend on type designers to make good fonts, eh?

These are your words not mine. I have designed enough type that I wouldn’t disrespect an entire field of professionals with a quip. Did I not just say ... I appreciate MS’s commitment to commissioning new type in this very thread?

What I am saying is that type designed specifically for screen accounts for a very small percentage of what is out there. The best rendering scheme would aim to make the vast majority of other typle look good too. So to rephrase your words: I’d rather that type designers not have to depend on hinting to maximize screen use. Who wouldn’t? (perhaps Tom Rickner — no disrespect :-)

The degree of convenient post-rationalization here is… unsurprising. That’s what graphic designers are best at

I’ll let that go.

Randy, I was referring to Clause’s “an OS should not depend” bit.

> I’d rather that type designers not have
> to depend on hinting to maximize screen use.

And I’d rather bacon not be unhealthy. But it can’t happen.

WYSIWYG is a lie, any way you cut it. When it comes to display setting, it’s a livable, generally convenient lie. When it comes to reading onscreen, it’s a deadly -but sadly still convenient to some- lie. You don’t have to rely on hinting to combat WYSIWYG (bitmaps anyone?) but you do have to rely on something besides a tarted up donkey with blinders.

Yes, most type is not made for the screen. But: we should encourage more of it to be; and most of all let’s not punish the ones that are. So the best rendering scheme would not enforce a one-size-fits-all fascism.

hhp

Thanks for the waterfalls Randy. Those are eye-opening. One other thing to try: If you set the anti-aliasing to “Light” in System Preferences in OS X, it makes for slightly sharper text.

Another factor: as pixel densities get higher, anti-aliaised fuzziness becomes less noticeable, while the wonky spacing and counter sizes (texture) of delta hinted renderers becomes more apparent. This is especially true for mobile devices, which are now commonly approaching 150ppi. Unhinted antialiasing looks amazing at these sizes. I’m really interested to see what the type looks like on the iPhone. When people start freaking out about how slick it looks, they of course won’t know that they are reacting to the type, but we type nerds are used to that :)

For those that think that the crisp CT type with bad spacing is more useful... I simply disagree. Ugly spacing is less ’purdy’ and less user friendly. As for designers making “good” fonts: at this point I would be happy with *different* fonts. I’m so sick of the web 5. Ack. Of course with CT there is no such thing as different type: it takes every font and crunches them all into the same shapes. Seriously, look at the examples above. The Verdana renders under CT look like Arial stretched out a little. Even the pixel versions have more flavor. [edit: this is a little bit of hyperbole, there are still obvious differences - but the individual flavors of the type are much more apparent in Quartz].

Nice point Christian.

Here’s the OSX preference setting options:

Hrant, your repeated claim that designers stick to their Mac like it’s a religion is duly noted and it holds some truth, but I haven’t heard you speak to the spotty spacing in the PC renders. I’d also be interested to know if you’ve spent a fair amount of time looking at OS X type on a Mac.

“I doubt porting Safari was their main goal.”

You got that right! It’s cool though: MS spends a ton to remake it’s applications to look more like browsers, while Apple just makes the browser run all the apps. Tickles me even before the Leopard is loosed.
It’d be nice though if Uncle Ying and Auntie Yang wised-up to the fact that neither “we” nor the “public” (nor the republic for that matter), are into their “competition” on this topic. Having caused billions in damages since it started in 92, with no end in sight, and nothing but disadvantage to all parties from the IT department to reader’s, it’s a lose-lose situation for all that just continues to be dragged on at the expense of all concerned...and for what?

Hmmmm?

Spotty spacing? First of all Randy’s examples suffer from two major flaws: they’re using legacy screen fonts; and they’re not using Vista. That said, I’ve never been highly satisfied with CT. But, again: at least it’s trying the right thing. To me intent is the foundation.

And what’s “a fair amount of time”? I certainly don’t believe that I, or anybody else, can scientifically self-field-test extended readability. I’ve done two things: gone to Apple stores a dozen times and spent maybe a total of two hours looking; and I’ve taken very close looks at the bitmaps generated by the Apple renderer. Since I’ve been looking at -and making- screen fonts since 1982, this is enough to feel safe in arriving at a very simple conclusion: Apple does not care about improving onscreen reading; they care, in that ol’ Modernist way, about the pretty gray blocks. And by extension: Apple no longer cares about type. And there’s other evidence of this in other things that Apple has [not] done. The thing is, I wouldn’t mind that too much if it was out in the open - but instead we get the opposite: the persistence of the belief -especially among graphic designers- that Apple cares about type, in particular cares about type more than MS. This type of denialism chaps my hide.

Now, I don’t believe MS, as a corporation, cares about type because it cares about us. In fact no public company can care about anything besides money. But I do believe that most people in the MS type department genuinely care; a corporation is typically made up of good people from whom it tries to milk profits; they resist to a certain extent, and this resistence allows for the persistence of true benefit to people. We know who the MS type people are - we’ve met them - they come and talk to us, ask us things. Where are the people at Apple’s type department? We don’t even know them. Peter? Haven’t heard a peep from him since 2002. Who else? Nothing, nada. Are they benevolent hermits? I think a much better explanation is that the type of people who are willing/able to make onscreen reading better simply haven’t been hired.

hhp

Okay Hrant i read you. Cleartype has made progress in Vista, so now we need to see Randys waterfalls rendered in Vista. For all the capacities and resources Microsoft has put into the Vista version of Cleartype it should show quality beyond Mac OS X.

Can someone deliver such screenshots?

Can someone deliver such screenshots?
Sorry, no vista here. Any improvement would be welcome. Again the waterfalls were generated at http://typetester.maratz.com/

I also would love to see apple commission new type. I would love to hear that they are constantly striving to improve rendering of type. But the fact that we haven’t seen these things doesn’t mean that their current results are bad nor that they aren’t working to improve things (of course I’d rather hear about it). In the mean time we’ve heard from at least 4 people in this thread who spend a lot of time reading text rendered on a mac, who say it works for them, at least two of which I can vouch for having a pretty critical eye for type!

I’m not sure I get the angst here. To me, there are areas where both Mac and PC rendering can improve, and it’s encouraging to me that both are pretty decent. It’s also encouraging to me (as mentioned by Christian and me), that screen resolution is increasing to the point where this is less and less of an issue. I do think there will be healthy bacon (excellent non-hinted screen type). And I also think designing fonts that work well in this environment will continue to be a niche within type design. But the focus will be on the outlines of the type itself, not extra curricular instructions. I for one welcome that possibility.

Coming back to the original topic: can anyone with Safari PC speak to the gamma question I posed earlier? Thanks.

“Cleartype [] should show quality beyond Mac OS X. Can someone deliver such screenshots?

http://typophile.com/node/33005

> Peter? Haven’t heard a peep from him since 2002.

This doesn’t excuse Apple’s lack of type innovation in recent years, but just FYI: Peter Lofting participated in a panel at TypeCon2006 and he’ll be speaking in Seattle, though I don’t know his topic yet.

http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/apple_patent_for_system_me...

I wonder what this all about ...

there is a lot more here, in this very long thread
Visual Communications
http://typophile.com/node/9982

Thanks David and Mike for those links — lots of informed commentary. I have to say, cleartype is looks much better to me with the grayscale smoothing added in Vista vs my samples of straight sub pixel RGB horizontal smoohting from XP. Can anyone speak to whether Vista CT also improves spacing? I may have fallen asleep for that part.

Ok. Now all PC users go out and buy a new computer so you can upgrade to Vista. Oh well. I’ve set a countdown widget for a decade so I’ll know when I can freely use the technology availble now. I think my decade countdown for CSS is winding down.

SuperUltraFabulous that link is pretty funny. I wonder if there’s anything behind the story.

Depite additional samples, if anyone with Vista would be willing to make a waterfall like the above for comparrison, that would be nice.

IIRC, Vista’s rendering has two advantages over XP’s: subpixel positioning, which effectively triples interletter spacing resolution; and vertical anti-aliasing, the effect of which is very visible in the spine of the “S” for example.

> Now all PC users go out and buy a new computer so you can upgrade to Vista.

Even if this were true, which it generally isn’t, it would still be less
costly -and less dumb- than buying a Mac for its onscreen rendering...

Plus XP’s rendering is still less bad than OSX’s.

hhp

Randy I wonder that too...

Mikey :-)

Randy I wonder that too...

Mikey :-)

hrant, i’m unclear about where you stand on all of this.

My double post is a new feature of the Safari Beta...

Mikey :o)

Randy, I’m interested in a few things.
Progress, serving the user, honesty/objectivity.

The OSX rendering philosophy has been a step backwards; and too many people deny this. CT, even under Vista, has been a step sideways; but a comforting proportion of people realize this (even if they can’t always put their finger on exactly what parts have gone wrong).

MS has to refine its rendering philosophy, in some aspects sharply.
But Apple has to chuck its rendering philosophy and start over.

hhp

Oh, and most of all, if a font has superhinting
or embedded bitmaps, please friggin’ use them.

Display what the type designer thinks his users need,
don’t trample roughshod over all that careful work.

hhp

That last post required the sarcasm dingbat...

I don’t think the situation at Apple is as dire as you make it out to be. I do welcome vista’s advancements in Clear Type as it will someday make my life easier and my work more flexible, but I won’t be switching platform any time soon.

More interesting reading.

Having looked at Safari on Vista I believe Apple did not make a real serious version for Windows. They just converted the Mac code to run on Windows.

They are not using the standard interface for the Vista translucent windows but making their own old Win31 style windows.

If you maximize the Safari window in Vista you can’t access the ’task bar’ to launch other applications. the Safari window takes control of the top layer. You can alt-tab to select other active windows or minimize or restore down to get at the rest of the OS.

“But Apple has to chuck its rendering philosophy and start over.”

Really? Apple is moving in a direction where they define the graphics and typographics of their OS and applications, beyond the reach of normal users and font developers. This is hardly surprising considering the relatively revolutionary nature of the changes coming in Leopard whereby type at a particular size is much less important to the UI relative to the graphic appearance of a more agile set of objects. That is to say, Apple has finally made an OS where all the items are scaleable, (zoomable) in their appearance, even if they are not zoomable in their creator applications. As we all know from Adobe’s success, zooming is a big boost to the user’s perception of font quality. Apple’s not stupid, ya know.

“More interesting reading.”
Not really. This is someone talking about what someone else who doesn’t know what they are talking about said...

“Vista’s rendering has two advantages over XP’s: subpixel positioning, which effectively triples interletter spacing resolution”

Really? How you define “effective” and “triples”, I’d like to know;)

(Pardon me if I’m re-stating the obvious here) but I’d like to point out that Randy’s problem with the PC screenshots he’s provided are due to the TrueType Instructions in the Verdana font, not with ClearType as a rendering system.
The TrueType instructions are effectively not used by the Mac, so the result is closer to what you’d get by simply scaling the actual outlines, therefore it appears pretty bold. On the PC without ClearType, you see the effect of the TrueType instructions in the font, which for smaller sizes (below 20ppm) affect the weight greatly, in an attempt to make the font more legible. Cleartype makes use of some of the TrueType instructions, but overrides others, which is why Randy sees the effect as “slightly improved.”

This all boils down to the advice that Simon and hrant gave; for a better comparison, use the Cleartype fonts. What you really don’t like about Verdana on the PC doesn’t have much to do with the rendering system - you just don’t like the TrueType instructions in the font. (I’ll make no comment on whether I like them - for obvious reasons.)

Jason C

> beyond the reach of normal users and font developers.

Yes, beyond the reach of people who matter and people who know.
Apple is a control freak.

But I never said Apple is stupid: they’re targeting their 5%, graphic designers.

> revolutionary

That word again. This philosophy dates back to about
1990, with that OS Apple bought - I forget the name.

> Apple has finally made an OS where all the items are scaleable

More Modernism.
Sounds great. Doesn’t work.

> How you define “effective” and “triples”

“Triples” is easy.
But the “effectively” I’ll actually withdraw, in favor of “virtually”. :-)

hhp

Hi Jason. Yep I understand what your saying. It seems like the best comparrison would be to show several unhinted fonts, several tt hinted fonts, and several cleartype fonts side by side since that’s what lives on our computers. I chose verdana, arial and georgia not because of their prowess under a particular rendering system, but because that is what we spend 99% of our time reading on the web (and will for quite some time). I can’t wait for Calibri to make the “safe” list, but I must.

David: the last paragraph of Stephen’s link and your comments about resolution independence in leopard are two parts of the same argument (and also says to me that Apple doesn’t have their heads in the sand). Which will get here first: Vista market saturation or higher resolution displays? Either way the future, for screen type at least, looks better.

Hrant:
But I never said Apple is stupid: they’re targeting their 5%, graphic designers.
At the moment I think they’re targeting the section of the PC market that wishes they were graphic designers :-)

Apple has finally made an OS where all the items are scaleable
More Modernism. Sounds great. Doesn’t work.
At 160ppi, 10px type is only 4.5 points (.0625 inches) and shrinking. So, we need things to be scalable. This is not modernism it is survival. Oh, and 16 px verdana bold is starting to look more important.

> that is what we spend 99% of our time reading
> on the web (and will for quite some time)

Yes; no.
It’s the easiest thing to change.

> Vista market saturation or higher resolution displays?

I don’t know about you, but I was waiting for the latter since 1998.
I gave up 2-3 years ago.

> we need things to be scalable.

Some people need some things to be scalable some time in the future.
Users need type to be readable, now.

hhp

Higher res displays are already here, just not on computers. I read books on my treo at 150ppi (I installed at third party antialiasing rasterizer; it’s terrible, but it beats the default bitmaps they have on there). Computer high res will come. It just won’t be driven by the needs of graphics professionals. It will come from crazy graphics processors designed to play games and people who want to watch movies at 4xHighDef on their laptops.

> Higher res displays are already here

But what size dude?
http://tommcmahon.typepad.com/tm/images/littlebook.jpg

And when you factor in the distance at which
you’re viewing that screen, 150dpi is not enough.

BTW, can custom TT fonts be loaded into the Treo?

hhp

Ha! A spread in that book really is about the same size as most mobile displays. It’s true that 150 ppi is not enough (even my 1200 dpi laser isn’t enough as far as I’m concerned), but ppi isn’t everything. 150 ppi with 16 bit color can carry more data than 150 dpi at 1 bit. This is true of pictures, but it’s also true of type. There really isn’t a correlation to this principle in the print world, since the ink is always there or not, with a maximum of maybe six colors (3bits ;). That being said, I’d rather have a 300dpi screen to read on, for sure.

I haven’t found a TrueType renderer for my Treo 650, but as I understand it, the 700p uses ttfs and sub-pixel rendering. I haven’t looked at it closely, though.

The frustrating thing about this debate is that it would all be remedied if OSes started rendering with DEVICE INDEPENDANT settings and manufacturers started increasing the resolution of our displays.

Seems like both Apple and MS are putting a lot of effort into what really just amounts to being a bunch of hacks.

> 150 ppi with 16 bit color can carry more data

And 150ppi with hand-made a-a can actually carry useful data!
As opposed to spending the resolution/depth on blur...

hhp

Darrel, I think what we’ve been saying is that MS has been putting a lot of effort in what “might” amount to a bunch of hacks (strong language) depending on your point of view...whilst Apple’s approach anticipates high res displays and features workable rendering now (strong language to some :-).

BTW, Clear type will benefit from higher res displays too. It’s great that they can throw money at it and we can get some nice new typefaces, and for those on the cutting edge of upgrades there are benefits now. So hrant, go with Vista today and you’ll be happy as a clam anti-aliasing Mana by hand for years to come.

Christian, love the bit depth humor.

> go with Vista today

On my XP, CT is off. :->

hhp

Jason C — but I’d like to point out that Randy’s problem with the PC screenshots he’s provided are due to the TrueType Instructions in the Verdana font, not with ClearType as a rendering system. [...] This all boils down to the advice that Simon and hrant gave; for a better comparison, use the Cleartype fonts.

The comparison screenshots are valuable since they exhibit the rasterizers’ different philosophies. Maybe the comparisons could be more systematic as regards the choice of both fonts and rasterizers: test Apple system fonts, older heavily hinted MS system fonts, ClearType fonts, each of them in all environments, OSX, WinXP, Vista.

As to the advice to better test the ClearType rasterizer with ClearType fonts ... that would make a strange ’comparison’, wouldn’t it?   ;-)

k.l., “As to the advice to better test the ClearType rasterizer with ClearType fonts … that would make a strange ‘comparison’, wouldn’t it? ;-)”
I know it sounds like a strange idea, but that’s because the CT fonts have less restrictive TT instructions in them. The point is that to evaluate optimal results, use fonts designed to give optimal results for each rasterizer. But because of the way tha Mac OS works, it doesn’t much matter which font you use, there’s no such thing as optimal tuning for the Mac.
It’s true that if you instead wanted to test pure results, not optimized results, you should use fonts with no TT instructions.

From a technical perspective, the Mac solution is really the problem. We’ve got different TrueType font engines here, but the Win rasterizer scales and renders type as one would expect from reading the TT (OT) specs, while the Mac rasterizer follows most of the TT (OT) specs, but virtually ignores a fairly critical section of the spec (Hint Instructions.)
I don’t want to dredge up the old fight about whether the TT hint instruction set was a good idea (for the 12 or so of us who care ;), but technically, the Win engine follows the specs more closely, and is truer to a font developer’s intentions, than the Mac engine.

However that whole idea doesn’t affect the real quality of display type. Shifts in hardware technology, and sociological changes in the way we read and process text over the last 10 years have really changed what the “optimal” way to render text is.

I’ve gotten off topic here, but my real comment on the Verdana problems is that the TT instructions in the font were designed to specifically work in a 2-bit, black and white rendering mode. They suffer more than many other faces in some greyscale rendering situations.

Jason C

“Is Lucida Grande the showcase font?”

Have you tried cross-referencing with Geneva?

I suppose one of the things that I’ll express as a potential caveat to your analysis - is in that I sense you’re assuming the future of computing is on the desktop.

With a continued penetration of 50% of all households in the US alone having a desktop in the home, I don’t find those demographics encouraging toward development. But the mobile and wireless market poses an interesting occurrence — having potential to break penetration once the paradigm shift occurs — allowing the possibilities for concentration of type technologies being placed toward the newer paradigm. That’s where we could see the most development impact moving forward, as the smaller realestate foot-print poses critical challenges in type rendering for both functionality and the aesthetic.

(No one really wants a mobile device that makes their eyes bleed.)

“Mac your choice”

I haven’t seen it brought up at all here (as in typophile), although it was recently mentioned to me by a coworker.

Leopard will be including a new text-engine, although I’m not sure if it’s a rendering engine, or a overhaul of old code and possibly supporting more OT features. ATSUI will be replaced by CoreText. I didn’t go to WWDC, and so I’m not sure what exactly was discussed. There is a mailing list, I might join it if it’s open. In any case, since ATSUI functioned on both OS 8.5 and OS X, but with greatly different rasterisation techniques, it might be limited to offering better frameworks for normal application developers to access type features and perhaps also expand OpenType support on the Mac.

Of course we’ll have to wait until it’s released to know since anyone who has a copy of Leopard is under NDA :(

«El futuro es una línea tan fina que apenas nos damos cuenta de pintarla nosotros mismos». (La Luz Oscura, por Javier Guerrero)

Hi there:

Matthew thanks for posting the scoop on the upcoming architectural changes to Leopard. As it stands right now there is some OpenType support but it is definitely incomplete. For some people, OS level support for the complete OpenType spec is irrelevant due to the fact that these same people use Adobe/Quark products which provide the total access to these features.

It would be a good thing if Apple was to finish the work they started with OpenType in the upcoming Leopard so people using apps MS Word, Pages, or even TextEdit can have full access to all of OpenType’s goodies.

Mike Diaz :-)

PS... My favorite error message in the world...

It’s interesting the three apps you noted. Word, Pages, and TextEdit all use different engines. Pages and TextEdit’s are related, but I’ve found subtle difference in mark-positioning for instance between the two when I needed to have a tilde over a lower-case q (a common Spanish abbreviation back in the day). TextEdit can do it perfectly. Pages is unable to, and places the tilde to the right of the q (although if I place an a in between the q and ~, it combines the a with the tilde. You can also select the tilde and a independently, kind of cool).

I’m not sure that that’s so much of an error as a warning. To my knowledge, there is no standard way to encode glyph variants in documents in any of the go-between formats, eg, if I have a UTF-8 encoded plain text document, I can’t actually define a glyph variant. Some programs don’t support them, so even if there were a way, they of course wouldn’t be able to display it.

«El futuro es una línea tan fina que apenas nos damos cuenta de pintarla nosotros mismos». (La Luz Oscura, por Javier Guerrero)