I think this is really important. We should have a policy on how we want
fonts rendered, and encourage folks to file bugs in cases where that
policy is not being followed. There may be reasonable exceptions to the
policy, but the debate should be documented and the decision with
rationale recorded.
In exploring this, please also include Chromium alongside Firefox, as
well as OO.o.
As a start to the policy, I would say that Ubuntu should aim for the
most accurate and visually pleasing rendernig of fonts possible, even if
that comes at a cost in performance. We should default to getting things
right in the eye of the designer - fully reflecting the hinting /
kerning of the font and using sub-pixel rendering to improve perceived
quality in a consistent fashion.
Since Freetype is the renderer in most cases, perhaps we could have it
log and apport cases where an application is using it in a way that
differs from policy or documented exception?
importance high
I think this is really important. We should have a policy on how we want
fonts rendered, and encourage folks to file bugs in cases where that
policy is not being followed. There may be reasonable exceptions to the
policy, but the debate should be documented and the decision with
rationale recorded.
In exploring this, please also include Chromium alongside Firefox, as
well as OO.o.
As a start to the policy, I would say that Ubuntu should aim for the
most accurate and visually pleasing rendernig of fonts possible, even if
that comes at a cost in performance. We should default to getting things
right in the eye of the designer - fully reflecting the hinting /
kerning of the font and using sub-pixel rendering to improve perceived
quality in a consistent fashion.
Since Freetype is the renderer in most cases, perhaps we could have it
log and apport cases where an application is using it in a way that
differs from policy or documented exception?
Mark