21–30 of 46 posts
On my Mac+Google Chrome the difference is barely noticeable.
Not on my rMBP. The "enhanced" versions are noticeably better spaced and easier on the eyes.
From the explanation beneath "How is this possible": > The Font Combiner application uses a couple of different techniques to overhaul fonts. All glyph forms are extracted from vectors present in the original fonts and scaled to size where appropriate, the vertical metrics are recalculated from scratch, and spacing and fresh automated hinting are applied to the result. Now, I don't know a lot about the gory details o…
I can't imagine that it would do better than carefully designed and hinted font. But I doubt such care is given to all fonts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't imagine that it would do better than carefully designed and hinted font. But I doubt such care is given to all fonts.
This is really the problem. Many fonts are poorly hinted and not designed with small sizes on a screen in mind.
Some rendering screenshots would help. I'm viewing this on my iPad and the only difference I see is bad kerning in the examples on the right.
Fortunately, I enforce my own fonts on web pages, as I cannot stand the incredibly poor quality of most "web fonts". Proper hinting makes a world of difference for reading on a screen. If you really care for typography on your website, you should pay for a decent font, or use a common system font.
From the explanation beneath "How is this possible": > The Font Combiner application uses a couple of different techniques to overhaul fonts. All glyph forms are extracted from vectors present in the original fonts and scaled to size where appropriate, the vertical metrics are recalculated from scratch, and spacing and fresh automated hinting are applied to the result. Now, I don't know a lot about the gory details o…
Do most people really see any difference?
Viewing them again on Chrome/Win7, the ones served by Font Combiner seem to have much better hinting.