Typophile - "Why will Johnny no longer want to read?" - Comments

“how you’re accounting

dberlow — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 04:47:41 -0700

“how you’re accounting for the gamma difference between Windows and MacOS?”

Subtle variations (hinted or, contoured), are all that can care of any of the differences between display technologies, arent they?

“don’t advance widths matter?”

They are almost all that matters, besides the letterform, are they not? I think those two things are dead even in the importance of being readable (at low resolutions). :) Don’t you?

So sad David spilled the

Beat Stamm — Mon, 9 Apr 2007 16:22:37 -0700

So sad David spilled the beans already—-this was sort of entertaining while it lasted. The goose-stepping vs galloping eyes was the hint that gave it away for me from the beginning. But now I’m left wondering: don’t advance widths matter? Or did the sacred spacing bovines wander back into the 20th c?

Beat

Apple 23” Cinema Display -

Paul Cutler — Mon, 9 Apr 2007 15:51:13 -0700

Apple 23” Cinema Display - no glasses - yet…

peace

I have a couple of NEC

Sharon Van Lieu — Mon, 9 Apr 2007 13:37:32 -0700

I have a couple of NEC diamondtron CRT’s 19” and 17”. I wear computer glasses (trifocal/bifocal).

Sharon

Farenheit 451 ChrisL PS:

dezcom — Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:43:48 -0700

Farenheit 451

ChrisL

PS: born in January of 1944; wear trifocals

I’m using a Sony Trintron

charles_e — Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:34:35 -0700

I’m using a Sony Trintron CRT with a 14-inch “deskspace” (horizontal, black-to-black on the screen). It is calibrated, I prepare a lot of B&W images for halftone printing. Oh. I was born in 1945.

If the left & right samples are my only two reading choices, I’ll give up reading, except for printed books, probably soon only to be found in dark basements, hidden away from the police.

IF CRT: This is not a good

Bruce — Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:59:45 -0700

IF CRT: This is not a good test for CRT-users, apparently. Sorry, when are your birthdays and how wide is your CRT’s desk space?

Aha. Yes, I am using a 19” ElectronBlue CRT, 1024 x 768. And I was born in 19 and 49.

Well, I’m on CRT/Mac, eyes

mili — Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:25:06 -0700

Well, I’m on CRT/Mac, eyes about 60 cm from the 19 inch Panasonic Panaflat screen (located below eye level), born in the mid 1960’s, wear glasses for computer, driving and tv, otherwise not at all. I might prefer the one on the right, even though the first impression was that the left one was better. Ideally something inbetween?

David, before I chime in,

hrant — Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:05:10 -0700

David, before I chime in, could you explain how you’re accounting for the gamma difference between Windows and MacOS? Because that’s pivotal, and frankly it’s pretty shocking that nobody has brought that up yet.

hhp

I looked at the samples on

William Berkson — Mon, 9 Apr 2007 06:57:56 -0700

I looked at the samples on windows xp on a flat screen. On my screen the one on the left is a bit light or loosely spaced, and the darker weight of the right is better. But as I said the spacing on the right is seriously irregular, to the point of hurting readability.

Thank you all. I lied as in

dberlow — Mon, 9 Apr 2007 04:46:01 -0700

Thank you all. I lied as in “This is simple.”© ;)

The most surprising thing to me: blur never came up, in word or root. Whew!

The x-hts are identical. Both samples use the same rendering, are from the same page in the same application on the same OS at the same time... only the font software has changed...and then, only TT instructions within the glyph data table.

If you like the sample on the right, you are all set. Many of the CT rendered fonts in Windows Vista will appeal to you as will type on the Mac and TV. Unless you return to print, or upgrade to a higher resolution LCD screen (or sample one), you will not know the difference.

IF CRT: This is not a good test for CRT-users, apparently. Sorry, when are your birthdays and how wide is your CRT’s desk space?

If you like the one on the left, you might soon be able to get up to the same speed and comprehension as you read in print.

The primary difference between the two samples is that one is prioritized for the rhythm and reading on screen, and the other to match the widths when printed.

If you are not sure, I will work to improve both sides, and I hope you read again without thinking any more about this. Now watch the roving center period...you are getting sleeeeeppy...your eyelids are heavy...you hear a yawn...

Insomniatic Typophiles: An “abundance” of pixels are used in rendering digital outline fonts on the Mac (and in Cool type) because those mechanisms don’t “really” use hints and anti-aliasing simultaneously for screen font rendering. Both designs in this study were made just light enough to avoid being too dark on the Mac. In Vista, (where hints and anti-aliasing are encouraged to work together), rendering is very light. So, some of the hairlines of the Mac version “burnt out” in Vista rendering. When I first saw this I thought “I scanned some overused metal by accident?”, and I liked reading it very much. Though I still do, so much for personal opinion.

Thank you all again, I’ve learned so much.

Cheers!

No I got it – one is Mac

Goran Soderstrom — Sun, 8 Apr 2007 00:35:50 -0700

No I got it – one is Mac and one is PC!

(?)

David I’m reading these at

ben_archer — Sat, 7 Apr 2007 20:35:16 -0700

David

I’m reading these at 100% on a G5 iMac LCD screen @ 1440x900. I find it easier to read the sample on the left.

What Chris says about the straight-to-straight sidebearings being overly tight is true. The line length of the right hand sample appears slightly longer than the left hand sample, and the right edge rag is softer, so I guess that overall there are more characters per line in the right hand sample. I notice that the leading values are different between the two samples – with the right hand one being leaded more generously – although that doesn’t improve its readability IMO.

Are we actually looking at two different fonts here? or the same font with different spacing applied?

David, I find myself stuck

Bruce — Thu, 5 Apr 2007 20:28:52 -0700

David, I find myself stuck between two poles. L feels very much in the mold of Jenson’s 1470 pages, serene, calm, and even in color. But the letters feel just a squeak too letterspaced and open. R feels very bunchy, blobby, hiccupy. I do not feel as drawn to it for its darkness as others have been. While there have been some comments about individual letter structures and side-bearings — things that might concern us technically — I am concentrating on the experience of the reader, who (if I understand this correctly) reads in gestalt clumps and does not perceive individual letters.

I think I end up reading R more quickly, taking in the gestalts with more sureness, but it is fatiguing underneath because of the clashes of light and dark, the bunching of things.

L feels a lot calmer, but sometimes in the sameness of color (goose-stepping as Nick said above . . . or I thought of a picket fence) I cannot find my way as quickly in processing the words; I see the individual letters one after another and that reduces my ability to take them aboard in clumps.

What if I said I would not like either one as a “forever” companion, but something in between?

Also, are these meant to be read only on screen? (which I have done at 100%.)

If I had to pick one to read forever I would pick L.

Was this helpful? Hope so.

This is all terribly

Nick Shinn — Thu, 5 Apr 2007 09:37:11 -0700

This is all terribly anecdotal and unscientific.
But perhaps that’s the point, that people outside of a laboratory test aren’t compelled to read what’s best for them. And in a real life situation, people won’t even bother reading something with superb “readability”, if a glance leaves them cold. So good typography has to be both showhorse and workhorse.

"Why will Johnny no longer want to read?"

dberlow — Tue, 3 Apr 2007 06:01:32 -0700

This is simple. Tell me, if you please, which you’d like to read, given no ither choice... “forever”, the font on the right, or the font on the left.

If you don’t know how to see this at “100%” please, ask. If you think that the artifacts of conversion to a bitmap file have unevenly effected these two specimens, please don’t. Both specimens were made from the same outline font, both specimens are hinted for and displayed with CT, and are shown at the same size and as much as possible, in the same composition. In addition, the same effective difference in typographic quality can be shown for any extant CT font published so far.

Then the question of course, is: how could any trustworthy readability research be based on a font like the one on the right? Unfortunately, this is no longer my problem, or Kevin’s problem, or the researchers problem as much as it had become, quite quickly and massively, a users problem, as evidenced by the fact that I can barely hear you all over the din.

Cheers!