Next XML changes
bryan at kadzban.is-a-geek.net
Sun May 16 18:47:43 PDT 2004
Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> You're actually the first which I've ever heard complain about the
> setting of a font-type. Are you the exception to the rule?
Exception, maybe, but he's not the only person who doesn't like that
particular font. Anti-aliasing fonts has always (in my view) made them
*less* readable, because they end up getting a lot bigger. Prettier,
yeah maybe, but in my mind, pretty takes a back seat to readability.
Besides, there isn't much of anything to anti-alias when the letters are
only one pixel thick... of course, if my eyes were worse, I wouldn't
want one-pixel-thick letters anymore, so maybe my mind will change.
This is why I consistently configure my Firefox / Thunderbird to not use
Xft. Xft makes the menus, default fonts, and everything much larger
than (IMNSHO anyway) it needs to be.
I am reminded of what happened when IE's default font size was a few
settings larger than anybody else's, when page authors started finding
interesting ways around it (make their default size "-2", specify all
font sizes absolutely, etc.), but ended up just making their site hard
on people that *needed* their fonts bigger, or didn't use IE.
> Or should we provide a sensible default rendering while allowing
> advanced users to plug in their own stylesheet?
Now that's not a bad idea, actually. I'll have to see if (and how) I
can override the CSS for only a certain (set of) URL(s)...
It might even make sense to have an "if you don't like the font" link
somewhere on the site (or in the book), linking to a couple of
explanations of how to override CSS in a couple of different browsers.
Make it a little more obvious, in other words.
More information about the lfs-dev