Looks like they’re using ’regular’ antialaising, maybe with some clever filters - that’s a bit 1997 isn’t it? ;-) Everyone else - Macromedia, Apple, Adobe, Microsoft abandoned that a while ago.

Weird, why does the alleged 1997 look better than Adobe’s or Microsoft’s font rendering.
It’s not about how accurate each nibble of a glyph is reproduced when viewed at an 80% view but how pleasing it is to the eye.

With ClearType and CoolType I never fail to get an upset stomach when trying to read longer passages of text. Another reason why I got rid of the final Windows XP laptop here.

Just realized that it looks a lot like ATSUI text rendering. I set that up at my main machine to grayscale anti-aliasing as opposed to the rainbow-bride version.

Interesting that you like that anti-aliasing better. The outlines are much more crisp, but the edge of, say, the large lowercase e looks very oddly angular and not as round as I know Warnock Pro is. But “de gustibus non disputandum est,” as they say.

With regards to FontBook integration, I suspect the answer for both may be the same - “why would we support a proprietary single-platform technology? We want to be able to get the same results on both major platforms.” Certainly that would be my initial thought if somebody brought up the question internally. (BTW, why are you only angry at Adobe and not Quark on this point? Are your expectaions inherently lower for Quark or something?)

The only ray of light of it’s interface is the multi pane window allowing for viewing master pages and their impact on the actual document pages, or multiple levels of zoom for your current page.

That’s a fine feature. InDesign has had it for a while - not sure if it was new in CS2 last year, or how far back it goes. Just go to Window > Arrange > New Window.

Cheers,

T

Haven’t we all come to expect less from Quark? :^P

I know I have.

“Lowered Expectations” is my dating agency for Quark ;)

I’m angry about Adobe because I actually ditched Quark for InDesign.

To your comment “why would we support a proprietary single-platform technology?” Easy answer: So you don’t stand out at the prime idiots on that platform. Every developer should live to the best they can on a platform, your comment would tell me that Adobe’s a lazy company - maybe not that bad, but close.

I mean do you really wear snow-boarding attire when going to surf?

The cascading windows feature of InDesign is more annoying than useful. I find the splitting of a window is nicer to the user as it cuts clutter and saves a few clicks.

Ok. I will ask a question and all myself to be laughed at.

About the image Frank posted. If I were doing a lot of online reading I’d say this image looks great. I have times when my eyes refuse to continue reading because the type seems blurry to me. Isn’t there a middle ground?

The best but very expensive approach would have been a Photofont with a custom size for each integer step from 5px to 72px. - Yeah right!

But if I was able to create an anti aliasing method in pixen (almost pixel by pixel) in 2 weeks to make Photofonts look great on screen, the smart heads as Apple, Adobe and Microsoft should be able too. Why they don’t join forces in this is beyond me. Probably a pissing contest.

Thing is that it’s not easy to do that for ALL fonts and currently the only ’global’ anti aliasing method that really works is ATSUI and even that I’d consider as the lesser evil, we’re not there yet. I should add that I read about 98% of my content on-screen. PDFs