[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       crux
Subject:    Re: FreeType Update [Re: Condition Of Packages]
From:       Simone Rota <sip () varlock ! com>
Date:       2004-01-17 14:07:48
Message-ID: 1074348468.269.13.camel () sip ! linux
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 13:37, Han Boetes wrote:
> Per Liden wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Robert McMeekin wrote:
> > > 	http://web.rrm3.org/comp/xwd/fonts/enabled.png
> > > 	http://web.rrm3.org/comp/xwd/fonts/disabled.png
> > 
> > Thanks both of you for looking into this. I agree it's a close call, but I'd
> > say that enabled.png is after all clearly the better one.
> 
> I think it's a matter of taste. I'm sure it also depends on your monitor. IMHO
> disabled is clearly the better one. We should have a vote ;)

Hi,

On my TFT screen
(on a Dell notebook) the disabled one looks so bad
that it's quite useless for me (I'd prefer to non antialiased
font to that one).
As Han says it's both a matter of taste and monitor:
on a CRT screen I feel the differences between the two is
less evident and I could live without the bytecode interpreter.

I could also depends on what font size you usually prefer:
I suspect for small font sizes the enabled would help a lot,
note the "quite-filled" "e" in the bold label "Font Rendering" on
the disabled.png screenshot.


My vote goes for enabled.png, whatever decision will be
taken on this matter, it shoudn't be too hard (I hope) 
to provide an alternative port into clc.

regards,
Simone
-- 
Simone Rota           WEB : http://www.varlock.com
Bergamo, Italy        MAIL: sip@varlock.com


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]