On 28 November 2016 at 11:07, Felix Miata
You didn't answer all questions I asked, your definition of "ugly" in particular, other than the single word blurry. I don't see blurry in either of your shots, only some typical effects of a low-ish pixel density SMB2030 LCD screen (its specs don't provide a dot pitch specification).
And, you didn't provide a screenshot like I hoped for. These are more like what I was hoping for: http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Suse/daveP-os422K3-1600x1000x096-1.png http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Suse/daveP-os422K3-1600x1000x108-1.png http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Suse/daveP-os422K3-1680x1050x108-1.png
The differences I see among Konq(v3), Opera (my first use of it since it adopted the WebKit rendering engine), and GTK2-built Firefox ESR 45, are significant, whether I'm viewing live on my 22" 1680x1050 screen, or the images I made, on either my 22" 1680x1050 or my 24" 1920x1200 screen. The primary distinction among them that I see is in Opera's not using the same primary font family as the other two, so it's hard to say whether its denser apparent stroke weights are on account of WebKit's rendering engine, or difference in the font used, or a combination of both. Plus, Opera cannot be made to apply the server's DPI, when it isn't 96, in that page, though it does manage to get the pt size fonts correctly sized, something I've not seen any non-Gecko, non-KHTML browser do in over half a decade. Thus some of the table numbers it produces are inaccurate.
Among my three screenshots, I find nothing objectionable about any of the font renderings given the lower than average physical DPI of the screen used for either 1600x1000 (synthesized) or 1680x1050 (native) creation. Your 20" 1600x900 screen, if in fact it measures 20.0", has a calculated physical pixel density of 91.8 DPI. My 22" is 90.1. My 24" is 94.3. Different panels adapt differently to the differences between physical density (very rarely actually 96, or whatever multiple for "HiDPI" screen models) and logical density (typically 96).
If you have any opportunity to do so, it might be worth your while to try a screen with higher density before blaming 42.2 for fonts you personally do not like. Average pixel density has been coming up over the years. Those under 96 are becoming more like dinosaurs, while the opposite extreme keeps climbing. It's simply not possible to please everyone while the range of densities and screen qualities are as wide as they are.
I was just writing a response to this thread but the above from Felix comprehensively addressed the vast majority of the points I wanted to make, so 'ditto' from me All I can add is that many months ago now, the contributors to Tumbleweed discussed the default fonts of openSUSE and chose the current ones based on their experiences, their testing, and a desire to pick defaults that worked better than the previous when it came to two main criteria - Looks good without patent-encumbered sub-pixel rendering enabled - Has consistent support for all languages/symbol families The new Tumbleweed defaults were a result of that work, were adopted with almost no complaints many months ago, and have since been also adopted in openSUSE Leap and even SUSE Linux Enterprise As the initiator of the font discussion all those months ago, I think I'm in a position to say it's a good story of how the community works together - I think practically every single font I suggested for the default was replaced with a justified alternative other people chose instead, and in every case I'm happier with the final outcome than both my suggested improvements and the original old default fonts. Fonts are always a tricky thing, no default font will please everyone, but in those cases you can always modify your local configuration to match. I think we're hitting the right balance for the broad audience Regards, Richard -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org