Le mercredi 26 janvier 2005 Ã 12:06 +0100, Enrico Scholz a Ãcrit : > Nicolas.Mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx (Nicolas Mailhot) writes: > > >> Things may be different on CRTs; I haven't tried to use one in years. > >> However, the mere suggestion that the possibility of using antialiased > >> fonts in text applications should be avoided simply because you think > >> bitmaps are sufficient is ludicrous. You can still use bitmap fonts > >> through fontconfig if you like, so you don't lose anything. > > > > Anyway the whole argument doesn't stand because you have all the > > tunables needed in fontconfig to fine-tune what kind of AA you want at > > what sizes in a per-user and per-font basis. > > > > <match target="font"> > > ... > > <edit name="antialias" mode="assign"> > > <bool>false</bool> > > </edit> > > </match> > > > > (elapsed time : 3 min in google) > > and crap... this is just an argument of pro-AA people who want to > demonstrate how ugly non-AA fonts are. > > The statements above turn just off antialiasing but still use the same > render technology. With the available free fonts (bitstream), this > creates disrupted lines and makes it look yet more ugly than AA. > > The real solution would be to use bitmap fonts. The real solution would be to use AA with a high-dpi screen like the 1999 medium-cost one I have on my desk (and have seen in countless times in other places). Hint: most screens on the market can do at least 100dpi easily, because consumers do look at the spec sheet before buying even if they end up using a ridiculously low resolution to work around broken systems like windows or emacs that still use by default the bitmap fonts chosen by their authors circa 1992. And I'm not even talking about the resolutions one would achieve if he were dumb enough to allow his screen to drop frequencies below 85 - 90 Hz. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
