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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jq01d4$rhl$4...@dough.gmane.org
