2 ms·

This article is a waste of time, imho. All it says is "this one font looks bad on my (not specified) system, in my (not specified) browser." It compares three c

This article is a waste of time, imho. All it says is "this one font looks bad on my (not specified) system, in my (not specified) browser." It compares three completely different fonts - one of which is professionally crafted, whereas the other two are "hobbyist" works. The rendering quality of his test cases has nothing to do with the method these fonts were embedded. Anyway, Windows XP is the biggest source for this kind of problems, as you can see in this chart: http://typophile.com/node/70216 http://typophile.com/node/70216

arnorhs 16y ago
That's a good point. I'm using Win XP and the font gets rendered the same way on both Chrome 5 and FF 3.6.3 I can't see how you're going to blame this whole issue on Windows, when other fonts in the same operating system get rendered much better in smaller sizes.
- phoboslab 16y ago
  Many of the Windows fonts have some special "Font Hinting" built in, which specifies how to exactly render the font in small sizes. This is important for systems, where there is no automatic Anti Aliasing in place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font_hinting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font_hinting Creating such a Font Hinting is, from my understanding, quite a tedious task and became unnecessary for newer systems. Most fonts that don't come along with Windows, simply don't have this hinting built in anymore.