Re: Fonts readability (was: Arial vs. Helvetica.)

From	rhkramer@gmail.com
Newsgroups	linux.debian.user
Subject	Re: Fonts readability (was: Arial vs. Helvetica.)
Date	2017-08-03 15:50 +0200
Message-ID	<uaoFI-Fn-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<ua2Yx-2AD-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <uajG3-5ML-35@gated-at.bofh.it> <uanqi-8kg-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Thursday, August 03, 2017 08:23:37 AM Nicolas George wrote:
> Even worse, the anti-aliasing is done wrong:
> it is done without taking gamma correction into account. That means that
> when 50% intensity is wanted, it produces 22% intensity instead:
> black-on-white is too thick, white-on-black is too thin.

Thank you for confirming something I suspected for a long time.

Do you know what program(s) is responsibe for the anti-aliasing, against which 
a bug might be filed (or maybe a bug has already been filed)?

Thread

Arial vs. Helvetica. peter@easthope.ca - 2017-08-02 16:40 +0200
  Re: Arial vs. Helvetica. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-08-02 16:50 +0200
  Re: Arial vs. Helvetica. Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-08-02 17:40 +0200
    Re: Arial vs. Helvetica. Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-08-03 10:30 +0200
      Fonts readability (was: Arial vs. Helvetica.) Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-08-03 14:30 +0200
        Re: Fonts readability (was: Arial vs. Helvetica.) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 15:50 +0200
          Re: Fonts readability (was: Arial vs. Helvetica.) Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-08-03 17:40 +0200
            Re: Fonts readability (was: Arial vs. Helvetica.) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-08-04 15:00 +0200
              Re: Fonts readability (was: Arial vs. Helvetica.) Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2017-08-04 15:40 +0200
        Re: Fonts readability (was: Arial vs. Helvetica.) Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2017-08-03 18:00 +0200
  Re: Arial vs. Helvetica. Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2017-08-03 22:50 +0200

csiph-web