🚀 go-pugleaf

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!