<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Apple, Microsoft, and Font Rendering</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/12/apple-microsoft-and-font-rendering/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/12/apple-microsoft-and-font-rendering/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:00:12 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: taewon</title>
		<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/12/apple-microsoft-and-font-rendering/#comment-94973</link>
		<dc:creator>taewon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:12:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/12/apple-microsoft-and-font-rendering/#comment-94973</guid>
		<description>For roman text I wholeheartedly prefer OSX rendering. However for Korean text Windows rendering is beautiful and readable. You simply cannot read Korean text in size 12pts or os rendered by OSX.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For roman text I wholeheartedly prefer OSX rendering. However for Korean text Windows rendering is beautiful and readable. You simply cannot read Korean text in size 12pts or os rendered by OSX.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/12/apple-microsoft-and-font-rendering/#comment-94626</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:39:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/12/apple-microsoft-and-font-rendering/#comment-94626</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000885.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;Coding Horror&lt;/a&gt; links to an interesting white paper about &lt;a href="http://artofcode.com/fontfocus/" rel="nofollow"&gt;FontFocus&lt;/a&gt;, a technology that increases contrast by snapping glyphs to the pixel grid.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000885.html" rel="nofollow">Coding Horror</a> links to an interesting white paper about <a href="http://artofcode.com/fontfocus/" rel="nofollow">FontFocus</a>, a technology that increases contrast by snapping glyphs to the pixel grid.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/12/apple-microsoft-and-font-rendering/#comment-94315</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:47:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/12/apple-microsoft-and-font-rendering/#comment-94315</guid>
		<description>I'm on the side of Microsoft and the old Apple: there should at least be the option to sacrifice beauty for easy on-screen readability. Optimize fonts on the screen for the screen and fonts on paper for printing. Only use print fonts on the screen when you're designing something that will be printed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I'm on the side of Microsoft and the old Apple: there should at least be the option to sacrifice beauty for easy on-screen readability. Optimize fonts on the screen for the screen and fonts on paper for printing. Only use print fonts on the screen when you're designing something that will be printed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Johan Kool</title>
		<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/12/apple-microsoft-and-font-rendering/#comment-94306</link>
		<dc:creator>Johan Kool</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:07:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/12/apple-microsoft-and-font-rendering/#comment-94306</guid>
		<description>You picked a funny bit to quote from that article, because it doesn't seem to be choosing either side. I'd choose this:

Which is why Apple engineers probably feel like they're doing a huge service to the Windows community, bringing their "superior" font rendering technology to the heathens, and it explains why Windows users are generally going to think that Safari's font rendering is blurry and strange and they don't know why, they just don't like it. Actually they're thinking... "Whoa! That's different. I don't like different. Why don't I like these fonts? Oh, when I look closer, they look blurry. That must be why."

Btw, I prefer OS X's rendering over Windows any day, but that might be because I am quite sensitive for typographical quality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You picked a funny bit to quote from that article, because it doesn't seem to be choosing either side. I'd choose this:</p>
<p>Which is why Apple engineers probably feel like they're doing a huge service to the Windows community, bringing their "superior" font rendering technology to the heathens, and it explains why Windows users are generally going to think that Safari's font rendering is blurry and strange and they don't know why, they just don't like it. Actually they're thinking... "Whoa! That's different. I don't like different. Why don't I like these fonts? Oh, when I look closer, they look blurry. That must be why."</p>
<p>Btw, I prefer OS X's rendering over Windows any day, but that might be because I am quite sensitive for typographical quality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
