Re: Problem with Iceweasel and low-quality fonts
On Mon, 28 May 2012 01:30:05 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-05-27 11:06:18 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 03:55:30 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> > In the Iceweasel preferences, I have the "Allow pages to choose their
>> > own fonts, instead of my selections above" option enabled. But the
>> > quality of the fonts is sometimes very low, a bit like bitmap fonts,
>> > without antialiasing.
>>
>> Yes, I suffer for that every single day (for instance,
>> "planet.gnome.org" looks horrible with hinting enabled). I'm
>> considering disabling that option...
>
> I had it disabled for several years, but now, some pages need their own
> fonts (those using MathJax IIRC, for nice math fonts).
The problem arises when the font renders poorly under some conditions,
such the ones I enforce in my systems: non-antialising and full hinting.
Of course, this option can be of great help when you know beforehand the
selected font will work for you :-)
>> > $ fc-match Tahoma
>> > Vera.ttf: "Bitstream Vera Sans" "Roman"
>> >
>> > which is actually my default font. So, where does the problem come
>> > from?
>>
>> So you are rendering B. Vera Sans instead the original Tahoma
>
> No, Firefox doesn't render Bitstream Vera Sans, contrary to what
> fc-match says. I don't know why. Seems to be a bug. As a workaround,
> I've done something similar to your suggestion below:
>
> <alias binding="same">
> <family>Tahoma</family>
> <prefer>
> <family>Bitstream Vera Sans</family>
> </prefer>
> </alias>
>
> and now the fonts are OK. You can see the difference on the attached
> tahoma-vera.png file (top: Tahoma; bottom: Bitstream Vera Sans).
I see. Yes, that's what happened to me (the OS had arial set as the
replacement for helvetica but this setting did not affect Firefox).
>> but what's the problem you see? Is it about the font face or about the
>> rendering (not being anti-aliased?)
>
> Both, I would say. First a font face problem: fc-match says that
> "Bitstream Vera Sans" is used, but this is not the case (without the
> change above). Then a rendering problem, because a bitmap font (without
> antialiasing) is used instead of a nice TrueType font.
I see.
>> http://picpaste.com/font_sample-Q03hEudo.png
>>
>> Which I find it perfect, I mean, I like how it looks.
>
> Well, I find it ugly (it's strange for a TrueType font -- or perhaps you
> have disabled antialiasing?), but this is probably less visible with a
> high screen resolution.
:-)
Yes, I have disable anti-aliasing (I hate it, it looks so softly that
hurts my eyes). And high quality TrueType fonts (like Tahoma) renders
perfect with anti-alias disabled and full hinting but sadly this is not
the case with the new fonts we can see now everywhere (e.g., Droids).
>> I don't see what's the problem you want to correct. When it comes to
>> fonts what's good or bad is very subjective and user-dependant...
>
> I find a font with antialiasing of much better quality (possibly except
> for small size, but this depends very much on the fonts; for monospace,
> I tend to prefer bitmap fonts).
That's what I wanted to say, what I find perfect it makes you cry (and
viceversa) :-P
>> Anyway... what I had to did once in Firefox to get some rendering
>> looking "good" was creating a file in my home directory "~/.fonts.conf"
>> with this inside:
>>
>> <fontconfig>
>> <alias binding="same">
>> <family>Helvetica</family>
>> <prefer>
>> <family>Arial</family>
>> </prefer>
>> </alias>
>> </fontconfig>
>
> Thanks, this works. You can see the difference on the attached
> helvetica-arial.png file (left: Helvetica; right: Arial).
Okay, yes... I see the difference.
I wonder why is that this is still needed because Firefox should respect
the system font settings.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: