Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Better text rendering in Chromium-based browsers on Windows

developer.chrome.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 133 posts

Re: Better text rendering in Chromium-based browsers on Windows

#111

Post by denkmoon »

babypuncher wrote: post #74
calebh wrote: post #29

It would be great if we could also go ahead and fix subpixel anti-aliasing for OLED screens. People have been been trying for years to get Microsoft's attention about this issue. [1] The subpixel layout of OLED screens is different than the the traditional layout, so text ends up looking pretty bad. Patching ClearType would be the first step to fixing this issue. I'm surprised that none of the display manufacturers h…

I don't think it's a big issue on Microsoft's radar because a lot of OLED screens have a high enough pixel density that the problem isn't really noticeable. The subpixel arrangements themselves have also improved in recent years, further mitigating the issue. I have a 27" 1440p 3rd gen QD-OLED panel and while I can make out some fringing if I pay real close attention to black-on-white text, it's not noticeable in gen…

We're definitely going to get >200dpi oleds before they ever fix sub pixel font rendering.

Re: Better text rendering in Chromium-based browsers on Windows

#112

Post by mschuster91 »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #70
calebh wrote: post #29

It would be great if we could also go ahead and fix subpixel anti-aliasing for OLED screens. People have been been trying for years to get Microsoft's attention about this issue. [1] The subpixel layout of OLED screens is different than the the traditional layout, so text ends up looking pretty bad. Patching ClearType would be the first step to fixing this issue. I'm surprised that none of the display manufacturers h…

> The subpixel layout of OLED screens is different than the the traditional layout, so text ends up looking pretty bad. Patching ClearType would be the first step to fixing this issue. Patching ClearType is unfortunately not as straightforward as it should have been. In an ideal world, you just change the sampling kernel your rasterizer uses to match the subpixel layout (with perceptual corrections) and you’re done.…

> whereas I am more concerned with how it has propagated the misery of 96 dpi and sustained inadequate displays for so long we’re still struggling to be rid of said displays and still dealing with the sequelae of said misery.

Well, Apple found a solution that works with web and print - and the font( file)s are the same. What's the secret stopping Microsoft from going the Apple route, other than maybe backwards compatibility?

Re: Better text rendering in Chromium-based browsers on Windows

#113

Post by sedatk »

mrpippy wrote: post #45

My overriding feeling after reading this is: displaying text is a key job of a web browser. A browser that showed no text would be useless. And yet, after learning that Chromium's text looked wrong on Windows (by far the most important platform for Edge and Chrome), it took 4 years for the Chromium and/or Edge teams to fix it. 4 years of user research? 3 years to respect the user's ClearType Tuner values? Being a reg…

Firefox has a 7 year old bug that's not fixed yet that messes up the typography of Google Docs et al. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1445596

Re: Better text rendering in Chromium-based browsers on Windows

#114

Post by jeffbee »

perching_aix wrote: post #107
jeffbee wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah as a person who only uses Microsoft Windows when absolutely necessary, who consequently has not been conditioned to overlook its many quirks, I find it hilarious that someone would judge an app for not being consistent with the look and feel. To see how unrealistic this complaint is, all you have to do is launch the Control Panel, then launch the Device Manager, and compare them.

Not sure why, this is like fallacies 101. Just because many other surrounding applications are inconsistent in their presentation, that doesn't mean this situation should be worsened.

Why is it a fallacy? I am pointing out that the reference on which consistency would be based isn't clear.

Re: Better text rendering in Chromium-based browsers on Windows

#115

Post by groby_b »

zokier wrote: post #21

One of those things that to me is frustrating is how there is no clear unambiguous definition of what is correct in font rendering. Presumably typeface designers have some specific intent on how heavy strokes and stems are, but then that somehow becomes ambiguous when a font gets rendered on screen. Asking for user feedback feels kinda pointless in that context, does your average user know what some random font shoul…

Vastly oversimplified, that'd be because fonts are individual strokes of varying width and free layout that get rendered on a array of pixels with fixed sizes and fixed layout.

Resampling comes with some aliasing/information loss. Font rendering is about picking which losses you're willing to take.

And you can't just "ask designers" because the trade-offs are different based on resolution and pixel layout. And they change as you scale the font up and down. ("Font hinting" tries to fix issues with that scaling. It's got its own downsides)

And because it's fun, there's also a perception component, where different people can just look at the same font and process it differently.

Font rendering is the art of making compromises that offend the least amount of people. A good starting point on the subject: "Text rendering hates you" - https://faultlore.com/blah/text-hates-you/

(I could swear there was also a great post by Raph Levien, but I can't find it)

Re: Better text rendering in Chromium-based browsers on Windows

#116

Post by magicalhippo »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #30
calebh wrote: post #29

It would be great if we could also go ahead and fix subpixel anti-aliasing for OLED screens. People have been been trying for years to get Microsoft's attention about this issue. [1] The subpixel layout of OLED screens is different than the the traditional layout, so text ends up looking pretty bad. Patching ClearType would be the first step to fixing this issue. I'm surprised that none of the display manufacturers h…

They should just ditch ClearType and use grayscale AA like Acrobat used to have. PPI is high enough on modern displays that the reduction in resolution won't matter.

I have a 1440p 27" monitor. On my monitor, ClearType vs greyscale AA is the difference between acceptable text and stabbing your eyes out with a rusty spoon.

From what I can gather, 4k at 32", which is the typical size you get 4k panels at, is just 30% more pixel-dense.

I have strong doubts just 30% more density will somehow magically make grayscale AA acceptable.

If you know any good 27" 4k mixed-use (ie >= 144Hz, HDR) monitors I'm all ears.

Re: Better text rendering in Chromium-based browsers on Windows

#117

Post by rendaw »

vlovich123 wrote: post #3

I feel like the before/after picture is a prank. I can’t tell a difference, at least looking at it on my iPad.

Whoah, for me the left looks unreadably blurry... but it sounds like that's only me? If other people saw it I have a hard time believing they wouldn't mention such a significant difference and just talk about "I stems" instead.

Re: Better text rendering in Chromium-based browsers on Windows

#118

Post by vel0city »

perching_aix wrote: post #88
mananaysiempre wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The subpixel layout of OLED screens is different than the the traditional layout, so text ends up looking pretty bad. Patching ClearType would be the first step to fixing this issue. Patching ClearType is unfortunately not as straightforward as it should have been. In an ideal world, you just change the sampling kernel your rasterizer uses to match the subpixel layout (with perceptual corrections) and you’re done.…

> Unfortunately, that ( I find this fascinating, because I recall school textbooks having visible dots, but I'm yet to experience what people refer to as "oh my god I'm seeing the pixel!". It further doesn't help that when seated at a typical distance (30° hfov) from a ~23" 16:9 FHD display (96 ppi), you get a match (60 ppd) for the visual acuity you're measured for when an optometrist tells you that you have a 20/20…

> I recall school textbooks having visible dots

In the color graphics or the text? I've read many textbooks with dithered color graphics but often had very sharp black and white body text.

Re: Better text rendering in Chromium-based browsers on Windows

#119

Post by wtallis »

perching_aix wrote: post #86
wtallis wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On OLEDs, high levels of ambient light hitting the monitor tends to wash out blacks, making them appear dark gray, thereby subverting one of the most clear-cut advantages of OLED.

I don't see this on any of my phones or wearables. I'm aware QD-OLED in particular has this weakness, but haven't heard of or experienced any other OLEDs having this issue.

I wonder if it's actually due to the quantum dots, or if it's more broadly a thing for large OLED panels. I haven't spent any significant time using an OLED TV, and I think most of the OLED computer monitors I've seen in person were QD-OLED.

Re: Better text rendering in Chromium-based browsers on Windows

#120

Post by eviks »

> One piece of feedback was significant—many Edge users shared that text appeared "washed out" and that it didn't look consistent with text in other parts of Windows.

> Text looked washed out on Chrome on Windows pre-132.

> The team took this feedback seriously and did some investigation.

Wait, does "the team" have no eyes/visual tests of their own? How can you seriously make a claim about them taking it seriously when they failed to notice this degradation in the first place? Or, for that matter, that it took so long to fix

> It was evident that the text contrast value needed to increase, but data was needed to determine how much to adjust it.

No, you adjust first until it's not "evident" anymore and then waste years on consumer research

Post reply on HN