On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 16:46, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Thursday 09 October 2003 16:31, foser wrote:
> >
> > Here you already have a problem, the perception of font quality differs
> > per-person and language. Some people really dislike AA (requires
> > different fonts to be good), others use different types of displays,
> > etc. And not latin language users usually know that they need extra
> > packs to have decent support, don't expect anything non-latin to look
> > good by default atm.
> >
> 
> I think that everyone agrees that ragged fonts are ugly (not rendered as 
> intended). This happens mainly without aa. Personally I use aa for fonts that 
> are outside the "normal range", so I would like that we try to make things 
> look ok with both.

If you don't use AA you shouldn't be using TTF fonts, it's a whole
different setup. In one way i agree with users that in essence good
bitmap fonts are better for the desktop, but good bitmap fonts cost $$$.

> For non-latin, I think we should look into making clear what needs to be done 
> for making it look good, which packages should be installed etc. Not all 
> people who would use those fonts know that.

I believe they do, otherwise they're stuck with incomplete charsets or
characters from different packs with different look. Anyway, this is all
part of a much bigger picture.

> > Again this is mostly a personal thing and it currently also depends on
> > how you install xfree (this is in flux).
> 
> We can at least identify the misrendered ones. (At least with -core, with qt, 
> and with gtk2/pango). Those should render approximately the same, sometimes 
> they don't. That might be fixable.

One and the same font renders the same everywhere, only config settings
influence this (well except for OO maybe).

- foser


--
gentoo-desktop-research@g.o mailing list