5 ms·

Review of Microsoft's ClearType Font Collection (2005)

38 points by precompute 7mo ago

antonios 7mo ago
Let us not forget about Bill Hill, co-inventor of ClearType technology: https://www.geekwire.com/2012/remembering-bill-hill-important-operating-system-homo-sapiens-10/ https://www.geekwire.com/2012/remembering-bill-hill-importan...
cube00 7mo ago
I really want to use better fonts for my sites but the double page render showing one font while it loads the actual font just looks so unprofessional and jarring. I thought this site being a typography focused site would have a better way to deal with it's still as bad as I remember it.
quietbritishjim 7mo ago
Alas, DirectWrite doesn't support ClearType, so many applications including Microsoft Word (!!) no longer use it – they just antialias with grey pixels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearType#ClearType_in_DirectWrite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearType#ClearType_in_DirectW... --- Some interesting comments from the article that didn't work out this way in the end: > Everybody’s favorite face will be Constantia by John Hudson. > Cambria will be the default font in the next Microsoft Word, taking over the spot long owned by Times. > I’m not sure how much need there is for a rounded sans [Calibri] In the end, the new default font in Word 2007 was Calibri, which was surely by far the most used of these new fonts. It was easy to switch to Cambria (and it was the default heading font for a while) so that was fairly well used, while Constantia is essentially unknown.
adornKey 7mo ago
Microsoft did a lot of great work on Fonts in the past. Recently it looked like they abandoned per monitor subpixel-rendering?! In which direction are they heading?
- Nevermark 7mo ago
  Pixel density continues to rise, but Microsoft might be engaged in… premature de-optimization? It’s duals/mirrors all the way down. Or up.
  - adornKey 7mo ago
    But the angular resolution of the eye doesn't rise. For a desktop monitor 100 ppi practically already reached the limits. Anything beyond that is just additional burden for the GPU and a waste of bandwidth. Surely you can increase resolution just to make font rendering easier, but you also have to pay the price in energy consumption or speed - without any visible improvement.
    - BearOso 7mo ago
      At the traditional 96 dpi, you have to be 3 ft away to exceed the retinal density. Personally, I sit at half that distance. Something around 200 would be more ideal. Laptops you might sit even closer. Mobile devices, unless you get really close to the screen, have matched the retinal density for a while. Most people hold the device at about 8 inches, so 450 dpi is the value to hit. Edit These measurements assume 20:20 vision, which is the average. Many people exceed that. So you'd need slightly higher values if you're feeling pedantic.
      - adornKey 7mo ago
        Having the focal point up close for a long time isn't that good for the eyes, so sitting closer than an arms length to a desk monitor isn't an idea that lasts well. 100 dpi with subpixel rendering already maxes out angular resolution (horizontal). It doesn't max out everything (retinal), so you still see some artifacts, but practically this is not that relevant. The price in energy/bandwidth rises quadratic for very little gain. To get the equivalent of 4K at 100 ppi - with 200 ppi you have to put the burden of 8K onto the GPU... For now this is absolutely not good - High ppi is ok for small monitors and handheld devices, but for a decent desk with several good monitors GPUs just aren't ready yet.
zvr 7mo ago
Of all the C-named fonts introduced by Microsoft at that moment in time, I think Consolas was the one which made the greatest difference from what was available already. Let's see whether it will also be the one with the most lasting impact.
yangjh843141 7mo ago
[dead]

38 points by precompute 7mo ago

Let us not forget about Bill Hill, co-inventor of ClearType technology: https://www.geekwire.com/2012/remembering-bill-hill-important-operating-system-homo-sapiens-10/ https://www.geekwire.com/2012/remembering-bill-hill-importan...

cube00 7mo ago

I really want to use better fonts for my sites but the double page render showing one font while it loads the actual font just looks so unprofessional and jarring. I thought this site being a typography focused site would have a better way to deal with it's still as bad as I remember it.

quietbritishjim 7mo ago

Alas, DirectWrite doesn't support ClearType, so many applications including Microsoft Word (!!) no longer use it – they just antialias with grey pixels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearType#ClearType_in_DirectWrite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearType#ClearType_in_DirectW... --- Some interesting comments from the article that didn't work out this way in the end: > Everybody’s favorite face will be Constantia by John Hudson. > Cambria will be the default font in the next Microsoft Word, taking over the spot long owned by Times. > I’m not sure how much need there is for a rounded sans [Calibri] In the end, the new default font in Word 2007 was Calibri, which was surely by far the most used of these new fonts. It was easy to switch to Cambria (and it was the default heading font for a while) so that was fairly well used, while Constantia is essentially unknown.

adornKey 7mo ago

Microsoft did a lot of great work on Fonts in the past. Recently it looked like they abandoned per monitor subpixel-rendering?! In which direction are they heading?

Nevermark 7mo ago
Pixel density continues to rise, but Microsoft might be engaged in… premature de-optimization? It’s duals/mirrors all the way down. Or up.
- adornKey 7mo ago
  But the angular resolution of the eye doesn't rise. For a desktop monitor 100 ppi practically already reached the limits. Anything beyond that is just additional burden for the GPU and a waste of bandwidth. Surely you can increase resolution just to make font rendering easier, but you also have to pay the price in energy consumption or speed - without any visible improvement.
  - BearOso 7mo ago
    At the traditional 96 dpi, you have to be 3 ft away to exceed the retinal density. Personally, I sit at half that distance. Something around 200 would be more ideal. Laptops you might sit even closer. Mobile devices, unless you get really close to the screen, have matched the retinal density for a while. Most people hold the device at about 8 inches, so 450 dpi is the value to hit. Edit These measurements assume 20:20 vision, which is the average. Many people exceed that. So you'd need slightly higher values if you're feeling pedantic.
    - adornKey 7mo ago
      Having the focal point up close for a long time isn't that good for the eyes, so sitting closer than an arms length to a desk monitor isn't an idea that lasts well. 100 dpi with subpixel rendering already maxes out angular resolution (horizontal). It doesn't max out everything (retinal), so you still see some artifacts, but practically this is not that relevant. The price in energy/bandwidth rises quadratic for very little gain. To get the equivalent of 4K at 100 ppi - with 200 ppi you have to put the burden of 8K onto the GPU... For now this is absolutely not good - High ppi is ok for small monitors and handheld devices, but for a decent desk with several good monitors GPUs just aren't ready yet.

zvr 7mo ago

Of all the C-named fonts introduced by Microsoft at that moment in time, I think Consolas was the one which made the greatest difference from what was available already. Let's see whether it will also be the one with the most lasting impact.

yangjh843141 7mo ago

[dead]