Comments on: Browsers War – Text Rendering

By: Rodrigo Dias

Rodrigo Dias — Tue, 18 May 2010 12:33:32 +0000

On Linux, Opera has the best rendering engine by far!

By: Andy Gongea

Andy Gongea — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:27:24 +0000

Have you seen the latest version of Safari on Windows? Don’t know why but now the default rendering way for Safari is the same as other browsers on Windows. Maybe that should be the joke but it isn’t – that’s the real fact. Apple dropped their previous rendering method in favor of Windows default one.

By: pista

pista — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:25:44 +0000

oh there is right and wrong… if it wasn’t, Guttenberg would probably never succeed with his invention. Because typography like this is all about readability (again).

By: pista

pista — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:23:08 +0000

mate is that all a joke right?
there’s absolutely no doubt that anybody who studied typography a bit will tell you Safari and os x text rendering is based on similarity to particular typeface and readability. You should not compare browsers but compare actual typeface with rendered one. Safari – absolute winner.
Now just go back to the third picture and tell me objectively which one of the texts are the most readable…

By: Paul F

Paul F — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:30:22 +0000

Agreed with Noel. Looking at your examples, the superiority of the Safari examples is immediately obvious to me… which is to say, it’s subjective. Apple’s type rendering engine is designed to render letterforms to preserve their design intent, which does unfortunately have a tendency to bloat the letters slightly in many cases. Microsoft’s approach with ClearType was designed to maximize “legibility,” which usually means they simplify and distort the letterforms as necessary to minimize the degree of anti-aliasing necessary to render them (straight lines snap to full pixels, etc.).

The starker gamma settings of Windows contribute to the contrast and lack of subtlety in Windows type rendering as well. Browsing on a Mac using Firefox is a very different experience from doing the same on Windows.

There isn’t a right or wrong, just preferences and differing philosophies. Many people find Windows text rendering to be ugly, tasteless and inaccurate. Others who are used to how it looks may find Mac/Safari rendering to be heavy or blurry. People read best what they read most, as they say.

By: ART178: Intro. to Web Design » Blog Archive » Type on the Web

ART178: Intro. to Web Design » Blog Archive » Type on the Web — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:16:04 +0000

[...] Browsers War – Text Rendering [...]

By: Noel Smart

Noel Smart — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:59:20 +0000

Any graphic designer that has studied typography will agree that Apple products render text in a way that is most true to the original typeface when printed on a page. Microsoft’s method was developed for clarity on low resolution screens which basically don’t exist anymore. The pixel density of most modern LCDs is more than adequate for this distorting of typefaces in order to ‘snap’ them to the pixel grid should end. This is one of a multitude of reasons designers use Macs. I’m sure most people ‘prefer’ the Microsoft rendering method simply because it’s been hammered into their skull for years and is what they are used to.

By: Andy Gongea

Andy Gongea — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:10:52 +0000

The standard one was used. All browsers were used as they are installed. I agree with too heavy.

By: Rocky

Rocky — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0000

In Windows, Safari’s font smoothing has four levels of adjustment. Which level did you guys use for your testing? I find the “standard” level to be too heavy, while the “light” setting works very well.

By: Andy Gongea

Andy Gongea — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:05:48 +0000

Thanks for telling me that Robert. You are right about ligatures and kerning – sorry for that glitch -, although the test was a little more generic than specific.