Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:36667 comp.sys.mac.programmer:8357 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!apple.com!casseres From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: System 7.0 speculations: Hot Scoop? Message-ID: <3650@internal.Apple.COM> Date: 17 Aug 89 17:22:59 GMT Sender: usenet@Apple.COM Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. Lines: 25 References:<3300@internal.Apple.COM> <121923@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> In article <121923@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> landman%hanami@Sun.COM (Howard A. Landman x61391) writes: > Readability is *NOT* a question. Anyone who has spent more than 1 minute > looking at aliased and antialiased fonts at the same (small) size will > know this without having to be told... I have done that, and I do not know any such thing. I do know that the antialiased fonts look nice, but to assess readability requires a whole lot more exposure than 1 minute (I've had maybe 5). > ...but the research supports it also. Readability is measurably > improved. I guess there is some difference of opinion on the scope and quality of the research. What I've seen has been either very sketchy, or mostly made up of unsupported assertions. Readability is rather difficult to define in a rigorous and meaningful manner, and even more difficult to measure objectively. Perhaps you've seen research that I'm not aware of; I'd love to see it too if that's the case. David Casseres Exclaimer: Hey!