Wed, 16:42: It bothers me that people are spending so much brainpower on webfont rendering, when any old Janson/Kis is dense & readable on toilet paper.
Wed, 16:44: And, yes, Microsoft renders badly, unless the goal is to render a few fonts well. It is a waste of human lifespan to deal with that.
Wed, 22:37: Thought #1. We in the free sw world ought to put as much trouble into MS rendering as we put into compatibility with non-GNU makes. (~ zero)
Wed, 22:40: Thought #2. Firefox, Chrome, etc., etc., etc., ought to include their own renderer on MS. Problem solved.
Wed, 22:44: Thought #3. Would that 1/10 the effort went into bypassing difficult renderers and improving others as went into bit twiddling of fonts.
Wed, 22:47: Thought #4. For a renderer to be difficult to work with, no matter the great job it does on specially designed fonts, is bad.
Wed, 23:01: Thought #5. An office suite is a good substitute for a typewriter. Scribus is specialized, so far. So what do we have but batch tools (TeX)?
Wed, 23:03: Thought #6. How come I can design a font with free software but have to roll my own software to see it in use properly? (Including good PDF)
Thu, 10:23: In the end, I am a computer programmer who makes fonts, who thinks computer programming is boring, and who wants to read, not sell things.
Thu, 10:31: Has anyone else noticed newspapers switching to new, fancier, more modern typefaces and thereby becoming more difficult to read?
Thu, 10:32: Why are graphic design books some of the worst designed books?
