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). > > For instance on http://www.allocine.fr/ see what I get on the image I've > > attached, for "A ne pas manquer". The FontFinder extension says: > > > > Font > > =============================== > > font-family (stack): Tahoma,Lucida,Arial,sans-serif > > Font being rendered: Tahoma > > font-size: 24px > > > > $ 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). > 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. > Look, this is how it renders in my Firefox 12 with Tahoma (truetype font) > installed: > > 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. > > Note: I have a similar problem on some other pages, where the font is > > Helvetica. But this time: > > > > $ fc-match Helvetica > > helvR12-ISO8859-1.pcf.gz: "Helvetica" "Regular" > > > > which is a bitmap font. How can such bitmap fonts be disabled for the > > web browsers (only)? > > 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). > 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). -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
<<attachment: helvetica-arial.png>>
<<attachment: tahoma-vera.png>>
